HomeMy Public PortalAboutExhibit MSD 77B BMP4 - Cost Estimating
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
BMP 4 – COST ESTIMATING
October 5, 2011
Revision: 0
Watershed Facility Planning - SSO Control Plan Development
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Jacobs Engineering Group
2350 Market Street 501 North Broadway
St. Louis, MO 63103-2555 St. Louis, MO 63102
(314) 768 6200 (314) 335 4000
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating i October 5, 2011
PREFACE
Sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) control is a critical component of the Metropolitan St. Louis
Sewer District (MSD) Watershed Facility Planning project. MSD has developed a multiyear
SSO Control Plan Development (SSOCPD) program to outline a cost-effective approach for
eliminating constructed SSO discharges into area receiving streams and mitigating other
sanitary sewer capacity issues during wet weather events. To assist this effort, guidance in
the form of Technical Memorandums (TMs) and Best Management Practices (BMPs) is
utilized.
TMs focus on specific activities associated with SSO Control Plan Development; a series of
40 TMs have been prepared and compiled in a companion Technical Memorandum Manual
to present the sequence of tasks, describe the approach, and outline the processes integral to
accomplishing the objectives of the program. In contrast, BMPs, such as this one, have been
developed to document standard procedures for major tasks associated with SSOCPD
execution to enable all program participants to follow a consistent approach in performance
of these tasks. As of this date, the BMPs below will be utilized in performing work
associated with the following aspects of the SSOCPD program:
• BMP 1 Alternative Solutions Evaluation
• BMP 2 Capacity Evaluation
• BMP 3 CCTV and Condition Inspections
• BMP 4 Cost Estimating
• BMP 5 Design Storm Tool
• BMP 6 Flow Monitoring
• BMP 7 Flow Monitoring Data Interpretation
• BMP 8 I/I Investigations
• BMP 9 I/I Prioritization Scope
• BMP 10 Modeling (XP-SWMM + HYDRA)
• BMP 11 MSD Design Requirements / Construction Specifications
• BMP 12 Preliminary Studies
• BMP 13 Priority Ranking System
• BMP 14 Project Database
• BMP 15 Project Definitions
• BMP 16 Pump Station Data
• BMP 17 Radar Rainfall Data
• BMP 18 Rehabilitation Evaluation
• BMP 19 Report Development Guide
• BMP 20 Shared Electronic Workspace
• BMP 21 SSO Control Master Plan Preparation
• BMP 22 Updating Constructed SSO Database
• BMP 23 Updating Facility Maps
• BMP 24 Watershed SSO Control Plan Report Preparation
• BMP 25 WWTF Service Area SSO Control Plan Report Preparation
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating ii October 5, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PURPOSE .................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 AUDIENCE ................................................................................................................. 1
3.0 RESOURCES .............................................................................................................. 1
4.0 DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................... 2
4.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................... 2
4.2 Category Construction Cost Estimate ...................................................................... 5
4.2.1 New Sewer ...................................................................................................... 5
4.2.2 Sewer Rehabilitation ..................................................................................... 6
4.2.3 Tunnel ............................................................................................................. 7
4.2.4 Special Feature .............................................................................................. 7
4.2.5 Storage Facility .............................................................................................. 8
4.2.6 Pump Station ................................................................................................. 8
4.2.7 Public I/I Reduction .................................................................................... 10
4.2.8 Private I/I Reduction ................................................................................... 11
4.3 Conceptual Project Capital Cost Estimate ............................................................. 11
4.3.1 Construction Costs ...................................................................................... 11
4.3.2 Additional Project Costs ............................................................................. 12
4.4 Net Present Worth Analysis ..................................................................................... 13
4.4.1 Considerations ............................................................................................. 13
4.4.2 Details ........................................................................................................... 13
4.5 Existing MSD Projects with Outdated Cost Estimates ......................................... 14
4.6 Comparative Cost Analysis ...................................................................................... 16
Appendices
Appendix A Flowchart 2. Process for Developing Conceptual Project Cost Estimates
Appendix B Data Entry Form
Appendix C CPCE Report Example
Appendix D CPCE Summary Report
Appendix E New Sewer Construction Unit Cost Charts
Appendix F Sewer Rehabilitation Construction Unit Costs
Appendix G Storage Facility Construction Unit Cost Curves
Appendix H Pump Station Facility Construction Cost Curve
Appendix I Forcemain Construction Unit Cost Chart
Appendix J I/I Reduction Unit Costs
Appendix K CIPRO Pay Items Used in Cost Estimating Database
Appendix L Computations/Assumptions: Construction Costs – Net Present Worth
Revision Summary
Revision Date Comments
0 10/05/11 Draft BMP for comment
Doc. Ref.: C5X59901/40004/BMP04
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating 1 October 5, 2011
1.0 PURPOSE
The purpose of BMP 4 – Cost Estimating is to assist in the development and
documentation of standardized construction cost estimates and a capital cost estimate
for each conceptual project. This BMP is intended to complement the requirements
presented in BMP 15 – Project Definitions, TM 32 – Develop Conceptual Watershed
Project Definitions, and TM 33 – Develop Conceptual Watershed Cost Estimates. A
number of estimating tools are appended to this BMP to facilitate/document the
development and uniformity of cost estimates for various types of projects. The cost
estimates developed under the guidance of this BMP are necessary for subsequent
efforts associated with the evaluation, recommendation, and prioritization of
watershed improvement alternatives, the production of watershed reports, and future
design efforts.
2.0 AUDIENCE
The primary users of this Cost Estimating BMP are the Cost Estimating Lead,
Engineers, Watershed Management (WM) Teams, and Service Area/Watershed
(SA/W) Teams. All may use this BMP to develop/document construction cost
estimates and capital cost estimates for conceptual projects utilizing the cost
estimating tools discussed herein, the cost information contained in Appendices A
through L, and the Conceptual Project Descriptions developed in accordance with
BMP 15 – Project Definitions.
3.0 RESOURCES
The Cost Estimating Database, together with BMP 15 and the various conceptual cost
estimating materials referenced herein and collected in Appendices A through L, are
the principal resources to assist in the development and support of cost estimates.
Additional resources available to users of this BMP include the following personnel:
• William Haag – Cost Estimating Lead (Jacobs)
E-mail: william.haag@jacobs.com
Phone: 314-335-4066
• Mark Beumer – Section Manager (Jacobs)
E-mail: mark.beumer@jacobs.com
Phone: 314-335-4121
• Philip Ewing – Cost Estimating Database Administrator (Jacobs)
E-Mail: philip.ewing@jacobs.com
Phone: 314-335-4027
• Tony Tawa – Project Engineer (Jacobs)
E-mail: tony.tawa@jacobs.com
Phone: 314-335-4196
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating 2 October 5, 2011
4.0 DESCRIPTION
The purpose of developing cost estimates during Activity 331 is to enable their
subsequent utilization during the evaluation, development, and prioritization of
various sanitary system improvements. In addition to using these estimates to
compare potential watershed solutions, these estimates are also used in later Activities
to compare alternatives with projects in other watersheds and Service Areas; it is also
possible that MSD will eventually use these estimates to prepare budget forecasts.
Consequently, it is critical that all WM Teams prepare cost estimates using the same
methodology, unit costs, and baseline year regardless of when the estimates are
actually prepared. This BMP establishes that methodology, provides the unit costs to
be used, and establishes the baseline year.
With respect to methodology, this BMP describes the process that SA/W and WM
Teams need to follow in developing cost estimates for new and previously defined
conceptual projects. The discussion is divided into four areas. Subsection 4.1
provides an overview of the entire effort, including a review of predecessor/successor
activities and a discussion of cost estimate development components and
terminology. Subsection 4.2 focuses on the preparation of construction cost estimates
for various infrastructure and/or system improvement categories that may be
associated with a project and discusses the various unit costs that are to be used.
Subsection 4.3 explains how these construction cost estimates are used to determine
additional costs associated with a project; the discussion also describes how the
various cost components are used to develop the project’s overall cost referred to as
the ‘Conceptual Project Capital Cost’. Every Conceptual Project Capital Cost
developed using this BMP reflects a 2011 baseline year. Subsection 4.4 describes the
methodology to develop a standardized net present worth for each project.
Comparison of previously developed cost estimates to those prepared using the
methodology presented herein is discussed in Subsection 4.5. Subsection 4.6 briefly
explains how the project cost estimates developed in accordance with the
requirements of this BMP are utilized in subsequent tasks. Discussions in all six of
these subsections are supported by materials presented in BMP 15 and by a variety of
cost estimating tools attached as Appendices A through L; the use of these resources
is integrated into the discussion of cost estimating procedures presented below.
4.1 Overview
Although the first two-thirds or so of the TMM discusses Activities that are directed
toward assessing sanitary system conditions and problems, the remainder of the TMM
is concerned with the primary objective of the SSOCPD effort – developing
approaches to address identified problems and preparing an explicit plan to correct
system deficiencies. This effort involves several steps as described in TMs 27
through 40. Activities 27 through 30 generally focus on infiltration/inflow (I/I)
removal and system hydraulics. Activities 31 through 35 implement the process of
transitioning from identifying potential solutions that address sanitary system
concerns to preparing a recommended list of watershed projects; these Activities
1 Activity 33 – Develop Conceptual Watershed Cost Estimates
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating 3 October 5, 2011
(especially Activities 32 and 33) are discussed further in the following paragraphs.
Finally, Activities 36 through 40 are associated with prioritizing watershed projects
and integrating them into a comprehensive Service Area implementation plan.
During Activity 312, various watershed-wide alternatives (including possible
components such as I/I reduction, storage, additional conveyance capacity, etc.) to
address sanitary system concerns are identified. The potential infrastructure
improvements for each watershed-wide alternative are refined during Activity 323 to
create well-defined ‘conceptual projects4’. As discussed in BMP 15, there are three
sources of conceptual projects: (1) new projects developed by the WM Team; (2)
existing MSD conceptual projects with revised scopes/quantities and/or inadequate
cost estimates; and (3) existing MSD conceptual projects with validated scopes,
quantities, and cost estimates. Cost estimates for these three types of projects are
developed and escalated as necessary during Activity 33. During Activity 345 the
Conceptual Project Descriptions and Conceptual Project Cost Estimates are evaluated
using criteria and guidance set forth in BMP 1 – Alternative Solutions Evaluation to
(1) develop the final preferred combination of conceptual projects for each alternative
that achieve watershed objectives, and (2) select the preferred watershed-wide
alternative. The conceptual projects for the preferred alternative are structured into
more formal projects during Activity 356.
Development of Conceptual Project Descriptions and associated cost estimates during
Activities 32 and 33 are critical intermediate steps in the process of progressing from
identifying potential sanitary system solutions to preparing a recommended list of
watershed projects. These two Activities are structured to interact with each other
and to achieve standardized outcomes. This is accomplished through adherence to
uniform requirements, procedures, and templates for the performance of Activities 32
and 33 set forth in TM 32/BMP 15 and TM 33/BMP 4 (this BMP), respectively. As
expanded on below, the project descriptions prepared in Activity 32 are developed to
a level appropriate for preparing subsequent cost estimates during Activity 33; a Cost
Estimating Database has been created to support the performance of both Activities.
As noted in BMP 15, the standardization and close correlation between the two
Activities limits the ability to adjust or refine cost estimates for projects to reflect
nonstandard features or special considerations. Although atypical project elements
are not captured in the cost estimates unless of significant consequence, the materials
prepared during Activity 32 do allow for documenting these aspects so that they can
be factored into subsequent evaluations.
2 Activity 31 – Identify Improvement Alternatives to Meet Watershed Goals
3 Activity 32 – Develop Conceptual Watershed Project Definitions
4 As used in this BMP, the term ‘conceptual project’ refers to sanitary projects listed in MSD’s CIPRO or
Oracle database, except for those projects at or beyond the stage at which the District has appropriated funds for
Construction. Thus conceptual projects may include, but are not limited to, projects that were identified in a
Master Plan or SKME Report, projects described by preliminary studies, and projects that are at various design
stages but have not yet been authorized for construction.
5 Activity 34 – Evaluate Watershed Improvement Alternatives
6 Activity 35 – Recommend List of Watershed Improvement Projects
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating 4 October 5, 2011
Development of project definitions and associated cost estimates are facilitated by
describing and quantifying a project in terms of eight major construction categories
that may be relevant components. The categories are (1) New Sewer, (2) Sewer
Rehabilitation, (3) Tunnel, (4) Special Feature, (5) Storage Facility, (6) Pump Station,
(7) Public I/I Reduction, and (8) Private I/I Reduction. Any combination of these
eight categories is available to define a project.
During Activity 32 quantities and other information are documented for all relevant
categories associated with a project. More specifically, a Conceptual Project
Description (CPD) consisting of four elements – Project Identification, Project
Definition, Project Information and Background, and Project Exhibit – is prepared
using the Data Entry Form associated with the Cost Estimating Database (see BMP
15). This information is used in a two-part process during Activity 33. During the
first part of the estimating process, a construction cost estimate is generated for each
relevant construction cost category as described in Subsection 4.2; these costs are
termed ‘category construction costs’ in this BMP for ease of reference. During the
second part of the estimating process, these category construction costs are used to
derive other project cost components and to determine both a Conceptual Project
Capital Cost as described in Subsection 4.3 and a Conceptual Project Net Present
Worth as described in Subsection 4.4. Utilization of these cost estimates, including
adjustments and comparisons to other cost estimates are briefly discussed in
Subsections 4.5 and 4.6. The cost estimating process is summarized on the decision
matrix flowchart presented in Appendix A.
Costs corresponding to the two parts of the estimating process cited above are
generated and documented using a two-part report referred to as the Conceptual
Project Cost Estimate (CPCE) Report. The CPCE Report is one of two principal
reports associated with the Cost Estimating Database. The other principal report is
the Conceptual Project Description Report as described in BMP 15. The Cost
Estimating Database is structured such that completion of the Data Entry Form
provides all the information needed to produce both of these reports. Most of that
information is replicated on the CPD Report and is used internally to calculate the
cost estimate results presented on the CPCE Report. A few items are specific only to
the CPCE Report; data entry labels associated with these fields are listed below and
are shaded in green on the Data Entry Form illustrated in Appendix B.
Location on Conceptual Project Data
Field Name Entry Form (Form Tab Name / Heading) Description .
Unit Cost ($/lf) Project Definition 1 / Tunnel See Article 4.2.3.b.
Construction Cost ($) Project Definition 1 / Special Feature See Article 4.2.4.b.
NPW Factor Project Definition 1 / Special Feature See Article 4.2.4.c.
NPW Factor Project Definition 2 / Pump Station (Facility) See Article 4.2.6.d.
Unit Cost – Other Project Definition 3 / Private I/I Reduction See Article 4.2.8.a.
Cost Estimate Year Documentation – Activity 33 See BMP 15 Appendix D
Description Misc. Cost Info. / Land Acquisition Cost See Article 4.3.2.
Land Acquisition ($) Misc. Cost Info. / Land Acquisition Cost See Article 4.3.2.
Description Misc. Cost Info. / Environmental Mitigation Cost See Article 4.3.2.
Mitigation Costs ($) Misc. Cost Info. / Environmental Mitigation Cost See Article 4.3.2.
Description Misc. Cost Info. / Excessive Utility Conflict Cost See Article 4.3.2.
Utility Conflict Costs ($) Misc. Cost Info. / Excessive Utility Conflict Cost See Article 4.3.2.
Existing Project Cost Estimate Misc. Cost Info. / Existing Cost Estimate See Subsection 4.5.
Year Misc. Cost Info. / Existing Cost Estimate See Subsection 4.5.
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating 5 October 5, 2011
Year Misc. Cost Info. / Future Escalation See Subsection 4.6.
Escalation Yr ENR CCI Number Misc. Cost Info. / Future Escalation See Subsection 4.6.
The CPCE Report is a working document intended to assist in the performance of
subsequent SSOCPD activities. An example illustrating the organization of the
CPCE Report is presented in Appendix C; although hypothetical, the ‘project’
presented therein includes components that encompass all eight construction
categories for illustration. This is the same ‘project’ that was used as an example to
illustrate the CPD Report in BMP 15. A reader-friendly abstract of the CPCE Report
referred to as the ‘CPCE Summary Report’ is illustrated in Appendix D.
4.2 Category Construction Cost Estimate
The steps presented in this Subsection outline the process that is used to identify a
project and generate category construction cost estimates for all conceptual projects,
including new projects, existing projects with revised scopes, and existing projects
with validated scopes7.
The only items required for project identification are Project Name and associated
Service Area, Watershed, and Record ID. All four of these items are automatically
copied into the CPCE Report based on information entered in the Data Entry Form.
Project identification information is recorded on all pages of the CPCE Report.
A category construction cost for a project represents the construction cost estimate for
a specific construction category exclusive of contingencies. Category construction
cost estimates are developed separately for each of the eight major construction
categories noted above that may be associated with a project. With the exception of
tunnel construction, special feature entries, and undefined (i.e., ‘Other’) private I/I
reduction, all unit costs needed for development of cost estimates are embedded in the
Cost Estimating Database. Consequently, development of the category construction
cost estimate typically occurs automatically once quantifiable aspects of the
Conceptual Project Description have been entered into the database via the Data
Entry Form. Part 1 of the CPCE Report is used to document these quantities and
relevant unit costs, and present the resultant extended costs and category construction
costs. (An extended cost is simply the result obtained by multiplying the item
quantity by the associated unit cost; the sum of extended costs for a category
represents the category construction cost.) Development of the category construction
cost for each of the eight construction categories is presented in turn below.
4.2.1 New Sewer
a. Using selected Project Definition information entered into the Cost
Estimating Database during Activity 32, relevant new sewer fields in Part
1 of the CPCE Report are automatically populated. Data presented
includes sewer type (sanitary, storm, or combined), pipe diameter (inches),
average trench depth (feet), trench cover type (sod or pavement), and
installation length (feet). A separate entry (row) is displayed for each
7 Refer to Subsection 4.5 for additional tasks performed for existing conceptual projects with validated, but
outdated, cost estimates.
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating 6 October 5, 2011
combination of variables (pipe size / trench average depth / trench cover
type) associated with the conceptual project.
b. Once all quantity information has been provided (including sewer type and
type of cover), the Cost Estimating Database automatically determines the
appropriate unit cost, calculates an extended cost for each entry, and sums
these extended costs to obtain a New Sewer Construction Cost estimate.
More specifically, for each new sewer entry created on the Data Entry
Form, the corresponding unit cost ($/linear ft) is automatically retrieved
via the ‘Run Macro!’ button for use and display on the CPCE Report; the
value associated with this retrieved cost is based on the ‘New Sewer
Construction Unit Cost Charts’ located in Appendix E.
c. Note: New Sewer Construction Unit Cost Charts for diameters 90 inches
and smaller were prepared by MSD and Jacobs primarily using MSD
CIPRO Database values, with adjustments at greater depths to account for
increased construction complexity; these costs were used to develop line-
of-best-fit cost projections at each applicable depth for diameters greater
than 90 inches. Costs are based on the assumption that polyvinyl chloride
pipe was used for diameters 36 inches or smaller, and that reinforced
concrete pipe was used for diameters larger than 36 inches. The
conceptual unit costs include appurtenances typically associated with
sewer construction (manholes, connections, etc.), as well as ancillary
construction costs for aspects such as mobilization, typical utility
relocation, and site protection/restoration. However, as noted in BMP 15,
they do not include rock excavation, dewatering, junction chambers, or
easement acquisition. If these excluded aspects represent a major element
of the project they should be addressed using the Special Feature
construction category; as a rule of thumb, if their impact to the resultant
Conceptual Project Capital Cost would be less than 15% they can be
ignored.
4.2.2 Sewer Rehabilitation
a. Using selected Project Definition information entered into the Cost
Estimating Database during Activity 32, relevant sewer rehabilitation
fields in Part 1 of the CPCE Report are automatically populated. Data
presented includes pipe diameter (inches), length (feet), quantity of point
repairs, and quantity of impacted service laterals. A separate entry (row)
is displayed for each sewer diameter being rehabilitated as part of the
project.
b. The cost of sewer rehabilitation for each pipe size diameter being lined
consists of three components: sewer lining, point repairs, and impacted
service lateral repairs. Once all quantity information has been entered, the
Cost Estimating Database will utilize unit costs specific to each of these
three components, calculate an extended cost for each listed pipe diameter,
and sum these extended costs to obtain a Sewer Rehabilitation
Construction Cost estimate. More specifically, for each sewer
rehabilitation entry associated with the project, the corresponding unit cost
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating 7 October 5, 2011
($/linear ft) for that diameter is automatically obtained from unit costs for
liner repair embedded in the Cost Estimating Database; unit costs for point
repairs and impacted service laterals are similarly retrieved. These unit
costs are documented at ‘Sewer Rehabilitation Construction Unit Costs’
located in Appendix F.
c. Note: The Sewer Rehabilitation Construction Unit Costs tabulation was
prepared by MSD and Jacobs primarily using MSD CIPRO Database
values; additional details are presented in Appendix F.
4.2.3 Tunnel
a. Using selected Project Definition information entered into the Cost
Estimating Database during Activity 32, relevant tunnel fields in Part 1 of
the CPCE Report are automatically populated. Data presented includes
tunnel diameter (feet) and length (feet). If there is more than one tunnel or
tunnel diameter associated with the project, additional rows are displayed.
b. Unlike other construction categories, unit cost information for tunnels has
not been developed. Consequently, tunnel unit costs ($/linear ft) need to
be developed by WM Teams on a case-by-case basis due to the potential
for significant variables such as depth, number of access shafts, and type
of subsurface material. Include any ancillary construction costs such as
mobilization, typical utility relocation, and site protection/restoration in
the unit costs; do not include land acquisition costs, as they are addressed
separately at Part 2 of the CPCE Report. Contact the Section Manager to
identify resources available to assist in determining tunnel costs and
related considerations. ‘Tunnel Unit Cost’ information is manually
entered at the same-named field on the ‘Project Definition 1’ tab of the
Data Entry Form (see Appendix B).
c. Once all unit cost information has been entered, the Cost Estimating
Database will automatically calculate an extended cost for each entry, and
sum these extended costs to obtain a Tunnel Construction Cost estimate.
4.2.4 Special Feature
a. Using selected Project Definition information entered into the Cost
Estimating Database during Activity 32, the ‘Designation’ field associated
with the Special Feature category in Part 1 of the CPCE Report is
automatically populated.
b. Unlike other construction categories, the unit cost approach is not utilized
for the Special Feature construction category. Instead the Data Entry
Form allows the user to enter the Category Construction Cost associated
with the special feature directly at the ‘Construction Cost ($)’ field on the
‘Project Definition 1’ tab of the Data Entry Form (see Appendix B). This
cost needs to be developed by WM Teams on a case-by-case basis. For
features such as rock excavation and dewatering, cost estimating methods
outlined in the Preliminary Studies Guidebook should be consulted. For
example if the Special Feature category consisted solely of rock
excavation, the WM Team would multiply the estimated volume of rock
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating 8 October 5, 2011
(i.e., Class A Excavation) by the Pre-CIPRO unit cost ($180/cubic yard) to
determine the cost of this work. Include any ancillary construction costs
such as mobilization, typical utility relocation, and site
protection/restoration in the value entered at Construction Cost ($).
c. Unlike most other construction categories, the Cost Estimating Database
allows for adjustment of the Net Present Worth Factor associated with the
Special Feature category. Refer to Subsection 4.4, particularly supporting
materials, for additional guidance.
4.2.5 Storage Facility
a. Using selected Project Definition information entered into the Cost
Estimating Database during Activity 32, relevant storage facility fields in
Part 1 of the CPCE Report are automatically populated. Data presented
includes facility type and volume (gallons). If there are multiple storage
tanks associated with the project, a separate entry is displayed for each
one.
b. For each storage tank entry, the Cost Estimating Database automatically
calculates the corresponding unit cost ($/gallon). The unit cost is based on
storage volume and facility type, and is associated with the respective best
fit equation illustrated by the ‘Storage Facility Construction Unit Cost
Curves’ located in Appendix G.
c. Once all unit cost information has been calculated, the Cost Estimating
Database automatically calculates an extended cost for each entry, and
sums these extended costs to obtain a Storage Facility Construction Cost
estimate.
d. Note: The construction unit cost curve for aboveground storage facilities
was prepared by Jacobs using cost information provided by two
manufacturers of prestressed concrete water storage tanks (Natgun
Corporation and Preload Inc.) and preliminary cost estimates regarding
wastewater storage facilities prepared for MSD Project No. 2003083 by
Crawford, Murphy & Tilly, Inc. The construction unit cost curve for
underground storage facilities was developed utilizing bid prices for
projects nationwide by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency8; those
values have been escalated/adjusted as appropriate utilizing the ENR CCI9
to represent 2011 unit costs. The conceptual unit costs include fencing,
driveway access, some site grading, maintenance vehicle parking, and
other facilities common to MSD storage facilities, but do not include rock
excavation, dewatering, extensive site work, or land acquisition.
4.2.6 Pump Station
a. Using selected Project Definition information previously entered into the
Cost Estimating Database during Activity 32, relevant pump station fields
8 See Manual: Combined Sewer Overflow Control, United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of
Research and Development, EPA/625/R-93/007, September 1993, p. 94.
9 Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI)
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating 9 October 5, 2011
in Part 1 of the CPCE Report are automatically populated. Data entered
includes peak design flowrate (mgd), forcemain diameter (inches), cover
type (sod or pavement), and forcemain length (feet). If there is more than
one pump station or set of forcemain conditions associated with the
project, additional rows are used; for varying forcemain conditions
associated with a single pump station, make sure that pump station
information is not replicated in the rows used to present additional
forcemain data. Costs of any gravity sewers beyond the limits of the
conceptual pump station facility should be determined as described in
Article 4.2.1.
b. As discussed in BMP 15, the Pump Station construction category portion
of the Data Entry Form distinguishes between the facility component and
the forcemain component. Once all quantity information has been entered
(including type of cover), the Cost Estimating Database automatically
calculates or retrieves the unit cost for each entry and separately calculates
facility and forcemain costs. More specifically, for each pump station
flowrate entry created on the Data Entry Form, the corresponding facility
cost ($) is automatically calculated; this calculated entry is associated with
the best fit equation illustrated by the ‘Pump Station Facility Construction
Cost Curve’ located in Appendix H. Similarly, for each unique forcemain
entry on the Data Entry Form, the corresponding forcemain unit cost
($/linear ft) is automatically retrieved via the ‘Run Macro!’ button for use
and display on the CPCE Report; the value associated with this retrieved
cost is based on the ‘Forcemain Construction Unit Cost Chart’ located in
Appendix I. The appendix contains two sets of Forcemain Construction
Unit Cost plots separately representing 6 thru 48 diameter pressure pipe
under sod and under pavement.
c. Once all unit cost information has been determined, the Cost Estimating
Database automatically calculates a facility cost and/or forcemain cost for
each entry, separately sums these two category cost components to obtain
a Facility Cost and a Forcemain Cost for the project. Collectively, these
two costs together represent the Pump Station Construction Cost.
d. Unlike most other construction categories, the Cost Estimating Database
allows for adjustment of the Net Present Worth Factor associated with the
facility aspect of pump stations. Refer to Subsection 4.4, particularly
supporting materials, for additional guidance.
e. Note: The Pump Station Facility Construction Cost Curve was prepared by
Jacobs using cost data associated with construction of selected facilities,
EPA cost curves, and other published information to develop and plot an
adjusted best-fit equation; the adjusted cost curve reflects a 2011 baseline
year. The conceptual unit costs for the facility include fencing, driveway
access, some site grading, a backup generator, 4 hours of storage,
maintenance vehicle parking, telemetry, and other facilities common to
MSD pumping stations. The facility cost is based on a submersible type
pump station. Forcemain construction unit costs were prepared by Jacobs
using MSD ‘Engineer’s Cost Estimates’ for various projects; the estimates
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating 10 October 5, 2011
were prepared during the past decade. The conceptual unit costs for the
forcemain include appurtenances such as restraints, valve boxes, and air
release valves. The facility unit costs and forcemain unit costs also
account for ancillary construction expenses such as mobilization, typical
utility relocation, and site protection/restoration, but do not include costs
for rock excavation, dewatering, junction chambers, extensive site work,
or land acquisition.
4.2.7 Public I/I Reduction
a. Using selected Project Definition information entered into the Cost
Estimating Database during Activity 32, applicable public I/I reduction
items in Part 1 of the CPCE Report are automatically populated. Unit
costs for the ten public I/I reduction items are already embedded in the
Cost Estimating Database; these respective unit costs are documented in
Appendix J. Once all quantities have been entered, the Cost Estimating
Database will automatically calculate an extended cost for each entry, and
sum these extended costs to obtain a Public I/I Reduction Construction
Cost estimate.
b. As discussed in BMP 15, the Public I/I Reduction construction category
portion of the Data Entry Form distinguishes between tthe sewers
component and the manholes component. Once all quantities have been
entered, the Cost Estimating Database will automatically retrieve the unit
cost and calculate an extended cost for each entry. The database will also
separately sum the extended sewer item costs to obtain a Public I/I
Reduction (Sewers) Construction Cost estimate and a Public I/I Reduction
(Manholes) Construction Cost estimate.
c. Note: Public I/I Reduction unit costs were developed jointly by MSD and
Jacobs using data from a variety of sources including adjusted contractor
bid prices for recent District projects (sewer defects and selected manhole
defects), in-house work order costs (manhole structure rehabilitation),
CIPRO Pay Item prices (manhole frame defects), and I/I vendor estimates
(manhole cover missing bolts). Refer to Appendix J for additional details
and assumptions and Appendix K for a listing of current CIPRO pay items
associated with unit costs used in the Cost Estimating Database. All unit
costs are assumed to be representative of the 2011 baseline year, and
include ancillary construction costs for items such as mobilization, typical
utility relocation, and normal site protection/restoration.
d. As noted in BMP 15, certain projects may involve baseline I/I removal in
areas that lack a precedent I/I investigation. Baseline I/I defect removal in
such circumstances is referred to in the Cost Estimating Database as
Projected I/I Reduction, and the associated cost is subsequently reported
using a ‘Projected I/I Reduction’ line item. Project I/I Reduction is
assumed to remove a portion of both public and private I/I defects. Refer
to Appendix J for additional details and assumptions associated with
development of Projected I/I Reduction costs.
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating 11 October 5, 2011
4.2.8 Private I/I Reduction
a. Using selected Project Definition information entered into the Cost
Estimating Database during Activity 32, applicable private I/I reduction
items in Part 1 of the CPCE Report are automatically populated. Unit
costs for the six relevant private I/I reduction items are embedded in the
Cost Estimating Database; the respective unit costs are documented in
Appendix J. Unit costs will need to be developed and entered for any I/I
reduction approaches that are not listed; this unit cost information for
‘Other: ____’ I/I reduction measures is manually entered directly below
the identification of the approach on the ‘Project Definition 3’ tab of the
Data Entry Form (see Appendix B). Once all quantities have been
entered, the Cost Estimating Database will automatically calculate an
extended cost for each entry, and sum these extended costs to obtain a
Private I/I Reduction Construction Cost estimate.
b. Note: Private I/I Reduction unit costs were developed jointly by MSD and
Jacobs in a series of workshops using contractor bid prices from recent
District projects and are representative of the 2011 baseline year. Refer to
Appendix J for additional details and assumptions. The unit costs do not
include the costs for private property releases, extensive site restoration, or
other special agreements.
c. Refer to Paragraph 4.2.7.d. for discussion associated with deriving costs
for private I/I reduction in areas without a precedent I/I investigation.
4.3 Conceptual Project Capital Cost Estimate
Following development of the category construction cost estimate(s), Part 2 of the
CPCE Report is used to present the Conceptual Project Capital Cost (discussed in this
subsection), the project’s Net Present Worth (Subsection 4.4), comparison with
outdated existing cost estimates (Subsection 4.5), and future escalation of the
Conceptual Project Capital Cost (Subsection 4.6).
Part 2.A. of the CPCE Report summarizes the various category construction cost
estimates and the associated construction contingencies and ancillary project
expenses (i.e., engineering and, if applicable, land acquisition). The Cost Estimating
Database uses the category construction cost estimates developed during the activities
described in Subsection 4.2 as the starting point for determination of these additional
costs, and is able to accommodate single or multiple categories associated with a
project in any combination in performing the necessary computations. The Total
Construction Cost and Net Present Worth for each category are also displayed at Part
2.A., together with respective project totals contributing to the Conceptual Project
Capital Cost and the Conceptual Project Net Present Worth. The methodology and
tools used to account for these additional costs and expenses and to obtain the
Conceptual Project Capital Cost estimate are described below.
4.3.1 Construction Costs
Part 2.A.1. of the CPCE Report is used to present the Category Construction
Cost, Construction Contingency, Total Construction Cost, and Net Present
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating 12 October 5, 2011
Worth for each of the eight construction categories (i.e., New Sewer, Sewer
Rehabilitation, Tunnel, Special Feature, Storage Facility, Pump Station,
Public I/I Reduction10, and Private I/I Reduction11). The Category
Construction Cost for each category is multiplied by a contingency factor to
obtain a Construction Contingency for the category. When added to the
Category Construction Cost, the Construction Contingency value produces
that category’s Total Construction Cost. The database sums the Category
Construction Cost, Construction Contingency, and Total Construction Cost for
each of the eight categories to obtain the project totals for these three cost
components.
4.3.2 Additional Project Costs
Part 2.A.2. of the CPCE Report is used to present Additional Project Costs.
Additional Project Costs include Engineering costs and certain types of
infrequently encountered major costs. Engineering costs are calculated
separately for each construction category and added to any applicable major
costs to obtain the Additional Project Cost.
Engineering costs includes expenses incurred by the District for activities such
as legal and administrative functions, surveys, geotechnical investigations,
preliminary studies and construction services, as well as engineering.
Generally it is calculated for each construction category as a designated
percentage of that category’s Total Construction Cost. For projects that
include a Private I/I Reduction component based on investigated defects, no
engineering costs are developed for this construction category, but instead a
cost of $2,000 is assessed for each parcel experiencing one or more I/I
reduction measures. In determining the quantity of impacted parcels, the Cost
Estimating Database makes the simplifying assumption that the value is equal
to the total number of private I/I defects.
The three types of infrequently encountered major costs considered are land
acquisition, environmental mitigation, and extraordinary utility relocations.
Land acquisition costs apply only to the Tunnel, Special Feature, Storage
Facility, and Pump Station construction categories. Environmental mitigation
refers to situations where atypical site work (remediation of contaminated
media, construction of compensatory wetlands, etc.) is required. Typical
utility relocations are already addressed in the various unit costs described in
Subsection 4.2; consequently, excessive utility conflicts only apply to those
circumstances where disproportionate utility concerns exist. MSD has
recently (December 2009) developed a Utility Cost Estimate spreadsheet that
can provide guidance in determining excessive utility conflict costs. Using
the ‘Misc. Cost Info.’ tab of the Data Entry Form (see Appendix B), each of
10 Public I/I reduction and private I/I reduction costs for projects lacking a precedent I/I investigation are
reported as Projected I/I Reduction cost. Although Projected I/I Reduction is not considered a separate
construction category, for purposes of calculating and reporting costs on the CPCE Report its associated costs
are handled in the same manner as if it were a ‘ninth’ construction category.
11 See Footnote 10.
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating 13 October 5, 2011
these three types of costs is handled in a similar manner when they are
relevant to a project. An explanation of the circumstances associated with the
expense is listed in the ‘Description’ field under the respective heading,
together with an associated cost in the accompanying cost field.
The Additional Project Cost is added to the Total Construction Cost for the
project to obtain the Conceptual Project Capital Cost. The Conceptual Project
Capital Cost is subsequently used in the Sanitary Projects Database (see BMP
14 – Project Database).
4.4 Net Present Worth Analysis
As noted previously, a major objective in developing Conceptual Project Descriptions
and standardized cost estimates is to enable the SA/W and WM Teams to compare
two or more alternative solutions, each designed to achieve similar results for an
identified problem. A number of factors are involved in these subsequent
comparative analyses, as discussed generally in TM 34 – Evaluate Watershed
Improvement Alternatives and in detail in BMP 1 – Alternative Solutions Evaluation.
One of the most important factors is net present worth. Net present worth refers to a
quantification of expenditures or value in terms of present dollars by considering the
time value of money, and applying this concept to expenditures and credits incurred
during the life expectancy of the improvements. The goal of a net present worth
analysis is to calculate the estimated life cycle costs associated with various
alternatives in an effort to select the solution with the lowest overall cost. This
subsection discusses the methodology that is used by the Cost Estimating Database to
determine the Net Present Worth of various conceptual level projects.
4.4.1 Considerations
Net present worth analysis allows for inclusion of economic factors beyond
initial construction costs as part of the deliberation. Some of the factors that
are taken into account in a net present worth analysis are initial capital costs,
various life cycle durations, replacement costs, and operation & maintenance
(O&M) costs (e.g., treatment costs, pumping costs, manpower, and utilities)
associated with competing alternatives. For example, a solution that has
greater capital costs may actually be more economical than a low capital cost,
high maintenance alternative; a net present worth analysis allows a systematic,
economic comparison. Additionally, factors such as the rate of inflation and
the interest rate on invested money are important considerations in any net
present worth analysis.
4.4.2 Details
The net present worth computations performed by the Cost Estimating
Database enable a comparison of capital and anticipated operation and
maintenance costs over the life expectancy of the competing improvements.
The results of net present worth computations for a project are displayed at
Part 2.A.1. of the CPCE Report. The various parameters, computations, and
assumptions utilized by the database in developing the displayed Net Present
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating 14 October 5, 2011
Worth values are discussed below. The discussion is supported by Tables L1
and L2 in Appendix L. Table L1 summarizes the various calculations used by
the Cost Estimating Database to obtain various costs and produce the Net
Present Worth for each construction category and the Conceptual Project Net
Present Worth. Table L2 documents the various assumptions used to
determine annual costs and replacement costs for each construction category
and illustrates how these assumptions were quantified.
Approach and Assumptions. As a starting point, a 50-year planning period
is used and capital expenditures are assumed to occur at year zero. Any O&M
costs associated with the various construction categories are assumed to occur
annually throughout this 50-year duration. Replacement costs for selected
improvement components are assumed to occur at various intervals depending
on the construction category and the replacement item. At the end of the 50-
year planning period no replacement or residual land value is considered and,
with the exception of tunnels, no credit is given for salvage value. Due to the
conceptual and standardized approach used to develop project descriptions
and construction costs, and after analyzing relevant data from a variety of
sources, simplifying assumptions were used to typically allow representation
of annual and replacement costs as a percentage of a category’s total
construction cost; the nature of certain categories required additional
complexity in some instances. The various assumptions and associated
computations are detailed in Table L2.
Net Present Worth Economic Formulas. Supporting the basic framework
described in the preceding paragraph, two parameters – inflation rate and
interest rate – are used in conjunction with standard cash flow factors and
formulas to account for the time value of money. More specifically, Uniform
Series Present Worth Factor (USPWF) equations are used to account for
annual costs and Single Payment Present Worth Factor (SPPWF) equations
are used to account for periodic replacement costs. A USPWF equation
converts annual expenditures over the planning period to a present worth
value. Similarly, an SPPWF equation converts expenditure at a specific point
in the future to a present worth value. Critical to the use of these equations is
selection of an interest rate. The Cost Estimating Database uses a Real
Interest Rate12 ‘i’ of 1.94% in performing net present worth calculations; this
is based on an assumed rate of return of 5% and a constant inflation rate of
3%.
4.5 Existing MSD Projects with Outdated Cost Estimates
As noted in Subsection 4.1, one of the three sources of conceptual projects is existing
MSD conceptual and design projects with validated scopes, quantities, and cost
estimates. Generally these validated cost estimates will either have been prepared
prior to 2006, or they will have been prepared using costs consistent with the
12 ‘Real Interest Rate’ (i) is equivalent to the ‘Rate of Return on Investment’ (r) minus the ‘Rate of Inflation’ (e).
It is calculated as follows: i = (r – e) ÷ (1 + e)
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating 15 October 5, 2011
District’s current CIPRO Pay Items tabulations; see Appendix K for additional
discussion. Relative to estimates prepared using the unit costs presented in this BMP,
some of these validated, existing cost estimates are considered outdated. Escalation
of validated cost estimates for existing projects to a 2011 timeframe is required to
enable their subsequent comparison to the Conceptual Project Capital Cost estimates
for such projects. A common tool used to compare construction costs for different
time frames is the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.
Part 2.B. of the CPCE Report displays escalated costs for existing projects with
outdated cost estimates. These escalated costs are determined using the following
three-step process:
1. Manually enter the project’s validated ‘Existing Project Cost Estimate’ at the
same-named field on the ‘Misc. Cost Info.’ tab of the Data Entry Form (see
Appendix B).
2. Manually enter the ‘Year’ (between 1990 and 2011 inclusive) associated with
preparation of cost estimate at the same-named field on the ‘Existing Cost
Estimate’ portion of the ‘Misc. Cost Info.’ tab of the Data Entry Form (see
Appendix B). For estimates from preliminary studies prepared subsequent to
2005 enter ‘2011’.
3. Based on the year entered for the existing cost estimate, the Cost Estimating
Database will automatically look up the associated ENR CCI Annual Average
value for that year13. Additionally, using the CCI Annual Average value for
May 2011 of ‘9035’ (already entered), the Cost Estimating Database will
automatically calculate the project’s Escalated Existing Total Cost Estimate
for the 2011 baseline year.
Part 2.C. of the CPCE Report is used to compare the Conceptual Project Capital Cost
to the Escalated Existing Total Cost Estimate; based on information associated with
Parts 2.A. and 2.B. of the CPCE Report, the ratio between these two values is
automatically calculated. SSOCPD participants should use this information to
examine the precision between the two values, and to assess whether the estimates
produced using the methodology described in this BMP are compatible with estimates
produced for MSD using other approaches. The Cost Estimating Database has been
designed to estimate typical costs for a described project, while at the same time
accommodating simplicity and standardization. Consequently, the further an actual
project varies from the norm, the less likely that the ratio between the Conceptual
Project Capital Cost and the Escalated Existing Total Cost Estimate will be close to
‘1.0’. These variations should be examined and taken into account when performing
comparative evaluations during later SSOCPD Activities. Depending on various
factors (e.g., objective, nature of activity, Program Team guidance) either the
Conceptual Project Capital Cost estimate or the more detailed existing cost estimate
may be the more appropriate value for use or presentation in a given situation.
13 The ENR CCI Annual Average value used for each of the years between 1990 and 2011 are presented in the
Cost Estimating Database’s ‘Ref Costs: ENR CCI Table’.
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating 16 October 5, 2011
4.6 Comparative Cost Analysis
As noted above, Conceptual Project Capital Cost estimates prepared under the
guidance of this BMP represent May 2011 costs. Upon future completion of the SSO
Control Plan, each total cost estimate will be updated to a common baseline year; this
escalation is not the responsibility of the WM Teams. It is likely that this escalation
will be performed using the ENR CCI that exists at that time in a manner similar to
the process described in Subsection 4.5. These escalated costs are developed by
manually entering the future baseline year and that year’s associated ENR CCI at the
‘Year’ and ‘Escalation Yr ENR CCI Number’ fields on the ‘Future Escalation’
portion of the ‘Misc. Cost Info.’ tab of the Data Entry Form (see Appendix B). From
this information the Cost Estimating Database will automatically calculate the
project’s Escalated Conceptual Project Capital Cost and the results will be displayed
at Part 2.D. of the CPCE Report.
Finally, it should be understood that the cost estimates prepared in accordance with
this BMP are conceptual in nature. If more detailed cost estimates are required, such
as for preliminary studies, other resources such as BMP 12 - Preliminary Studies and
the associated Preliminary Studies Guidebook should be consulted.
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating October 5, 2011
Appendix A
Flowchart 2. Process for Developing Conceptual Project Cost Estimates
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating Appendix A – Flowchart 2. Process for Developing Conceptual Project Cost Estimates A-1 October 5, 2011
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating October 5, 2011
Appendix B
Data Entry Form
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating Appendix B – Conceptual Project Data Entry Form B-1 October 5, 2011 Appendix B – Data Entry Form Project Definition 1 Tab:
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating Appendix B – Conceptual Project Data Entry Form B-2 October 5, 2011 Project Definition 2 Tab:
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating Appendix B – Conceptual Project Data Entry Form B-3 October 5, 2011 Project Definition 3 Tab:
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating Appendix B – Conceptual Project Data Entry Form B-4 October 5, 2011 Comments Tab:
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating Appendix B – Conceptual Project Data Entry Form B-5 October 5, 2011 Documentation Tab:
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating Appendix B – Conceptual Project Data Entry Form B-6 October 5, 2011 Misc. Cost Info. Tab:
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating October 5, 2011
Appendix C
CPCE Report Example
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating
Appendix C – CPCE Report Example C-1 October 5, 2011
Appendix C – CPCE Report Example
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating
Appendix C – CPCE Report Example C-2 October 5, 2011
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating
Appendix C – CPCE Report Example C-3 October 5, 2011
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating
Appendix C – CPCE Report Example C-4 October 5, 2011
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating October 5, 2011
Appendix D
CPCE Summary Report
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating
Appendix D – CPCE Summary Report D-1 October 5, 2011
Appendix D – CPCE Summary Report
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating
Appendix D – CPCE Summary Report D-2 October 5, 2011
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating
Appendix D – CPCE Summary Report D-3 October 5, 2011
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating October 5, 2011
Appendix E
New Sewer Construction Unit Cost Charts
• 8 - 36 Pipe / Sod
• 42 - 90 Pipe / Sod
• 96 - 144 Pipe / Sod
• 8 - 36 Pipe / Pavement
• 42 - 90 Pipe / Pavement
• 96 - 144 Pipe / Pavement
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating
Appendix E – New Sewer Construction Unit Cost Charts E-1 October 5, 2011
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating
Appendix E – New Sewer Construction Unit Cost Charts E-2 October 5, 2011
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating
Appendix E – New Sewer Construction Unit Cost Charts E-3 October 5, 2011
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating
Appendix E – New Sewer Construction Unit Cost Charts E-4 October 5, 2011
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating
Appendix E – New Sewer Construction Unit Cost Charts E-5 October 5, 2011
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating
Appendix E – New Sewer Construction Unit Cost Charts E-6 October 5, 2011
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating October 5, 2011
Appendix F
Sewer Rehabilitation Construction Unit Costs
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating
Appendix F – Sewer Rehabilitation Construction Unit Costs F-1 October 5, 2011
Appendix F – Sewer Rehabilitation Construction Unit Costs
Item Unit Unit Cost1,2,3
CIPP Liner – 08-Inch Diameter Linear Foot $32
CIPP Liner – 10-Inch Diameter Linear Foot $39
CIPP Liner – 12-Inch Diameter Linear Foot $55
CIPP Liner – 15-Inch Diameter Linear Foot $66
CIPP Liner – 18-Inch Diameter Linear Foot $77
CIPP Liner – 21-Inch Diameter Linear Foot $83
CIPP Liner – 24-Inch Diameter Linear Foot $88
CIPP Liner – 27-Inch Diameter Linear Foot $99
CIPP Liner – 30-Inch Diameter Linear Foot $121
CIPP Liner – 36-Inch Diameter Linear Foot $165
CIPP Liner – 42-Inch Diameter Linear Foot $220
CIPP Liner – 48-Inch Diameter Linear Foot $352
CIPP Liner – 54-Inch Diameter Linear Foot $5464
CIPP Liner – 60-Inch Diameter Linear Foot $6444
CIPP Liner – 66-Inch Diameter Linear Foot $8204
CIPP Liner – 72-Inch Diameter Linear Foot $9424,5
CIPP Liner – 78-Inch Diameter Linear Foot $1,0914
CIPP Liner – 84-Inch Diameter Linear Foot $1,2984
CIPP Liner – 90-Inch Diameter Linear Foot $1,5054
Point Repair Each $6,0006
Service Connection/Repair Each $2,0007
NOTES:
1. Unless noted otherwise, all unit costs listed include a 1.1 factor to account for ancillary
construction costs for aspects such as mobilization, site protection/restoration (minor),
and utility relocation (relatively insignificant).
2. All unit costs are representative of the 2011 baseline year (May 2011 ENR CCI = 9035).
3. Unless noted otherwise, all unit costs are based on values in the CIPRO Pay Items
tabulations used for preparing current (2011) preliminary cost estimates (see Appendix K).
4. Per MSD experience on previous projects, costs for 54" and larger sewer rehabilitation
have been adjusted (31% to 43%) to account for the significant expense of bypass
pumping at these sizes; at smaller sizes the cost of bypass pumping is assumed as
adequately captured by the aforementioned source of data.
5. No CIPRO value exists. Unit cost shown was determined based on best fit trend line
equation developed using CIPP Liner unit costs for all other sizes presented.
6. The Point Repair unit cost is based on the average of the unit costs for “Point Repair-Over
10 Feet Deep” ($6,100) and “Point Repair-Under 10 Feet Deep” ($3,300) contained in the
current CIPRO pay items tabulation. This unit cost also includes a 21% ancillary markup
for protection and restoration of site, utility relocation, and mobilization. The resultant
value was rounded to $6,000/each.
7. The unit cost for Service Connection/Repair is based on bid prices associated with the
ongoing annual CIPP lining work being managed by MSD; it is the same value currently
used in the preparation of cost estimates for preliminary studies.
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating October 5, 2011
Appendix G
Storage Facility Construction Unit Cost Curves
• Aboveground Storage Facility
• Underground Storage Facility
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating
Appendix G – Storage Facility Construction Unit Cost Curves G-1 October 5, 2011
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating October 5, 2011
Appendix H
Pump Station Facility Construction Cost Curve
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating
Appendix H – Pump Station Facility Construction Cost Curve H-1 October 5, 2011
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating October 5, 2011
Appendix I
Forcemain Construction Unit Cost Chart
(6 thru 48 Forcemain – Sod 6 thru 48 Forcemain – Pavement)
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating
Appendix I – Forcemain Construction Unit Cost Chart I-1 October 5, 2011
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating October 5, 2011
Appendix J
I/I Reduction Unit Costs
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating
Appendix J – I/I Reduction Unit Costs J-1 October 5, 2011
PUBLIC I/I REDUCTION UNIT COSTS
Construction Subcategory: Sewers
Item Unit Unit Cost1,2 Cost Basis
Cross or Parallel Connection EA $21,000 Note 3
Direct Catch Basin EA $7,000 Note 4
Mainline Defect EA $17,000 Note 5
Construction Subcategory: Manholes
Item Unit Unit Cost1,2 Cost Basis6
Mainline Cover – Missing Bolts EA $40 Note 7
Manhole Cover – Pick Holes (no ponding) EA $220 Note 8
Manhole Cover – Pick Holes (ponding) EA $1,650 Note 9
Manhole Frame – Broken Frame EA $700 Note 10
Manhole Frame – Seal/Rim Leak (no ponding) EA $420 Note 11
Manhole Frame – Seal (ponding) EA $2,130 Note 12
Manhole Structure Rehabilitation EA $1,870 Note 13
NOTES (Public I/I Reduction Unit Costs):
1. Unless noted otherwise, all costs include 10% Ancillary Markup for Protection and Restoration of Site, Utility
Relocation, and Mobilization.
2. All unit costs are representative of the 2011 baseline year (May 2011 ENR CCI = 9035).
3. Cross or Parallel Connection Cost: Based on analysis of sewers in Upper Deer Creek it was determined that
this item could be adequately represented by a simplified composite cost consisting of the following three
components: (1) 230 lf of CIPP-lined 12-inch diameter sanitary sewer ($50/lf); (2) 40 lf of CIPP-lined 27-
inch diameter storm sewer ($90/lf); and (3) two service lateral connections ($2,000/ea). Unit Cost =
1.1*[(230lf x$50/lf) + (40lf x $90/lf) + (2 x $2,000)] $21,000.
4. Direct Catch Basin Cost: Assume 35 ft repipe of 15-inch storm sewer under sod at a depth of 6 ft; cost
(including 21% Ancillary Markup) is $200.72/lf per Sewer Construction Unit Cost Charts in Appendix E.
Unit Cost = 35lf*$201/lf $7,000.
5. Mainline Defect Cost: Similar to ‘Cross or Parallel Connection Cost’ with the exception that storm sewer
lining is not required. Cost Equation = 1.1 x [(230lf x$50/lf) + (2 x $2,000)] $17,000.
6. Reference in notes to selected CIPRO Pay Items refers to values in the CIPRO Pay Items tabulations used
for preparing current (2011) preliminary cost estimates (see Appendix K).
7. Based on cost provided by RJN Group Item ‘Manhole Cover – Missing Bolts’ - $35. Unit Cost = 1.1*$35 $40.
8. Based on CIPRO Pay Item #2573 - ‘Install Manhole Covers’ - $200. Unit Cost = 1.1 x $200 = $220.
9. Based on CIPRO Pay Item #2573 - ‘Install Manhole Covers’ - $200 and CIPRO Pay Item #2444 - ‘Adjust
Manhole to Grade’ - $1,300. Unit Cost = 1.1 x ($200 + $1,300) = $1,650.
10. Based on CIPRO Pay Item #2436 - ‘Manhole Frame and Cover Remove and Replace’ - $640. Unit Cost =
1.1 x $640 $700.
11. Based on CIPRO Pay Item #1760 - ‘Manhole Frame Seals’ - $385. Unit Cost = 1.1 x $385 $420.
12. Based on CIPRO Pay Item #2436 - ‘Manhole Frame and Cover Remove and Replace’ - $640 and CIPRO
Pay Item #2444 - ‘Adjust Manhole to Grade’ - $1,300. Unit Cost = 1.1 x ($640 + $1,300) = $2,130.
13. Based on average of Hansen Work Orders for MSD Operations ($170/ft) and assumed average manhole
depth of 10 ft. Unit Cost = 1.1 x 10ft x $170/ft = $1,870.
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating
Appendix J – I/I Reduction Unit Costs J-2 October 5, 2011
PRIVATE I/I REDUCTION UNIT COSTS
Item Unit Unit
Cost1,2
Cost Basis3
Downspout EA $2,100 Note 4
Service Lateral EA $9,600 Note 5
Area Drain EA $7,000 Note 6
Driveway Drain EA $8,500 Note 7
Basement Entry Driveway Drain EA $18,000 Note 8
Cleanout EA $850 Note 9
Other EA Varies Note 10
NOTES (Private I/I Reduction Unit Costs):
1. All costs include 21% Ancillary Markup for Protection and Restoration of Site, Utility Relocation, and Mobilization.
2. All unit costs are representative of the 2011 baseline year (May 2011 ENR CCI = 9035).
3. Cited bid tabulations (tabs) and assumptions used to develop unit cost average for all Private I/I Reduction items
except ‘Other’ are documented elsewhere.
4. Downspout: Downspout unit cost represents cost of making disconnections at a single parcel. Cost based
on assumption that three disconnections are required per parcel and weighted average of three types of
downspout disconnections: (1) disconnect to grade ($125 per disconnection, represents 70% of
disconnections); (2) disconnect to curb ($700 per disconnection, represents 15% of disconnections); and (3)
disconnect to inlet/manhole ($2,500 per disconnection, represents 15% of disconnections). Unit Cost =
1.21 x [($125 x 0.70) + ($700 x 0.15) + ($2,500 x 0.15)] x 3 $700 x 3 $2,100.
5. Service Lateral: Based on bid tab unit cost average ($5,900) for ‘Repair Service Lateral - CIPP (0-50
Linear Feet)’ pay item associated with one MSD I/I reduction projects (3 unique bids), plus $2,000 for the
additional service connection repair component. Unit Cost = 1.21 x $7,900 $9,600.
6. Area Drain: Based on bid tab unit cost average ($5,500) for ‘Area Drain: Install/Reroute’ pay item
associated with one MSD I/I reduction projects (8 unique bids). Unit Cost = 1.21 x $5,500 $7,000.
7. Driveway Drain: Based on bid tab unit cost average ($7,000) for ‘Driveway Drain: Install/Reroute’ pay item
associated with eight MSD I/I reduction projects (22 unique bids). Unit Cost = 1.21 x $7,000 $8,500.
8. Basement Entry Driveway Drain: Multiple bids unavailable; consequently based on CIPRO Pay Item #2653 - ‘Sewer
Separation/Driveway Drain Disconnect’ - $15,000 (see Appendix K). Unit Cost = 1.21 x $15,000 $18,000.
9. Cleanout: Based on bid tab unit cost average ($700) for ‘Cleanout: Raise and/or Replace Existing Cover’
pay item associated with six MSD I/I reduction projects (35 unique bids). Unit Cost = 1.21 x $700 $850.
10. Other: Unit cost determined by engineer on case-by-case basis commensurate with the description of I/I reduction item.
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating
Appendix J – I/I Reduction Unit Costs J-3 October 5, 2011
PROJECTED I/I REDUCTION UNIT COST
Designation Unit Unit Cost1,2,3,4
Projected I/I Reduction LF $20
NOTES (Projected I/I Reduction Unit Costs):
1. Unit cost includes 21% Ancillary Markup for Protection and Restoration of Site, Utility Relocation, and Mobilization.
2. Unit cost is representative of the 2011 baseline year (May 2011 ENR CCI = 9035).
3. Unit cost is only applicable to areas without an existing I/I investigation or other existing quantification of
I/I defects.
4. The unit cost was developed using costs for baseline I/I defect removal for I/I Study Areas with data
available in Upper Deer Creek and Gravois Creek Watersheds as of 05/16/2011. This includes 36 of 76 I/I
Study Areas in Gravois Creek Watershed and 62 of 75 I/I Study Areas in Upper Deer Creek Watershed.
The following five steps were involved:
(1) The total length of sanitary sewer within each Study Area based on ArcGIS data was recorded, and the
quantity of each type of baseline defect existing within that Study Area based on its precedent I/I
investigation was quantified and tabulated.
(2) The cost for removal of each identified baseline I/I defect in a Study Area was calculated using the
respective public and private I/I reduction unit costs presented previously in this appendix for the
various items.
(3) The aggregated cost for baseline defect removal in a Study Area was divided by the length of sanitary
sewer in that Study Area to develop removal costs on a ‘per linear foot of sanitary sewer’ basis.
(4) The values developed in Step (3) were averaged for each of the two watersheds to calculate that
watershed’s cost/ft for baseline I/I removal. The resultant averages were $15.19/ft for Deer Creek
Watershed and $16.19/ft for Gravois Creek Watershed – a less than 7% variation.
(5) Finally, an additional adjustment was made to the costs calculated in Step (4) to account for addressing
additional defects identified via CCTV that will typically be incorporated into I/I reduction projects.
Based on examination of preliminary study data regarding the additional impact of CCTV repairs to
total estimated cost for a typical I/I reduction project, the Projected I/I Reduction unit cost was
adjusted to $20/ft of sanitary sewer existing within an area designated for I/I reduction.
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating October 5, 2011
Appendix K
CIPRO Pay Items Used in Cost Estimating Database
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating
Appendix K – CIPRO Pay Items Used In Cost Estimating Database K-1 October 5, 2011
Appendix K – CIPRO Pay Items Used in Cost Estimating Database
The CIPRO Pay Items tabulated below were used to develop certain costs used in the Cost
Estimating Database. The unit costs shown for these Pay Items are those that exist in the
current (May 2011) CIPRO Pay Items spreadsheets used for development of preliminary
study cost estimates. Unit costs for nearly all CIPRO Pay Items, including those below, have
remained relatively flat, i.e., less than 3% change overall change during the past five years.
Consequently, as discussed in the body of this BMP, when comparing existing cost estimates
for preliminary studies prepared subsequent to 2005 to those developed using the Cost
Estimating Database no escalation of the existing estimate is required.
Pay Item No. Pay Item Unit Unit Cost
2444 Adjust Manhole To Grade Each $1,300
2467 CIPP Liner - 08 Inch Diameter - 06 MM Linear Feet $29
2700 CIPP Liner - 10 Inch Diameter - 06 MM Linear Feet $35
2699 CIPP Liner - 12 Inch Diameter - 7.5 MM Linear Feet $50
2701 CIPP Liner - 15 Inch Diameter - 07.5 MM Linear Feet $60
2396 CIPP Liner - 18 Inch Diameter - 09 MM Linear Feet $70
2397 CIPP Liner - 21 Inch Diameter - 09 MM Linear Feet $75
2398 CIPP Liner - 24 Inch Diameter - 10.5 MM Linear Feet $80
2399 CIPP Liner - 27 Inch Diameter - 10.5 MM Linear Feet $90
2236 CIPP Liner - 30 Inch Diameter - 13.5 MM Linear Feet $110
2179 CIPP Liner - 36 Inch Diameter - 19.5 MM Linear Feet $150
2201 CIPP Liner - 42 Inch Diameter - 22.5 MM Linear Feet $200
2203 CIPP Liner - 48 Inch Diameter - 24 MM Linear Feet $320
2788 CIPP Liner - 54 Inch Diameter - 24.5 MM Linear Feet $380
2789 CIPP Liner - 60 Inch Diameter - 30 MM Linear Feet $440
2727 CIPP Liner - 66 Inch Diameter - 31.5 MM Linear Feet $570
2479 CIPP Liner - 78 Inch Diameter - 38.5 MM Linear Feet $700
2478 CIPP Liner - 84 Inch Diameter - 43.5 MM Linear Feet $830
2182 CIPP Liner - 90 Inch Diameter - 52.5 MM Linear Feet $960
2573 Install Manhole Covers (Only) Each $200
2436 Manhole Frame And Cover Remove And Replace Each $640
1760 Manhole Frame Seals Each $385
2469 Point Repair - Over 10 Feet Deep Each $6,100
2470 Point Repair - Under 10 Feet Deep Each $3,300
2653 Sewer Separation / Driveway Disconnect Each $15,000
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development
Best Management Practices Manual SSOCPD Activity 4
BMP 4 – Cost Estimating October 5, 2011
Appendix L
Computations/Assumptions: Construction Costs – Net Present Worth
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating Appendix L – Computations/Assumptions: Construction Costs – Net Present Worth L-1 October 5, 2011 Table L1. Summary of Computations Used To Obtain Construction Costs, Project Costs, and Net Present Worth Row Col. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Construction Costs Project Costs Net Present Worth Construction Category (Subcategory in parentheses) Quantities Unit Costs Category Construction Cost Construction Contingency Total Construction Cost (TCC) Additional Project Cost Factor Additional Project Cost Conceptual Project Capital Cost Net Present Worth Factor Net Present Worth (NPW) Conceptual Project Net Present Worth 1 New Sewer Per CPD Form Entries New Sewer Construction Unit Cost Charts BMP 4 Appendix E Col. 2 x Col 3 Col. 4 x 0.3 Col. 4 + Col. 5 0.25 Col. 6 x Col. 7 - 1.0 (See Table L2) Col. 6 x Col. 10 - 2 Sewer Rehabilitation Per CPD Form Entries Sewer Rehabilitation Construction Unit Cost Curve BMP 4 Appendix F Col. 2 x Col 3 Col. 4 x 0.3 Col. 4 + Col. 5 0.1 Col. 6 x Col. 7 - 1.0 (See Table L2) Col. 6 x Col. 10 - 3 Tunnel Per CPD Form Entries Originator Developed Col. 2 x Col 3 Col. 4 x 0.3 Col. 4 + Col. 5 0.25 Col. 6 x Col. 7 - 0.81 (See Table L2) Col. 6 x Col. 10 - 4 Special Feature Per CPD Form Entries Originator Developed Col. 2 x Col 3 Col. 4 x 0.3 Col. 4 + Col. 5 0.3 Col. 6 x Col. 7 - 1.0 (Default) (See Table L2) Col. 6 x Col. 10 - 5 Storage Facility Per CPD Form Entries Storage Facility Construction Unit Cost Curves BMP 4 Appendix G Col. 2 x Col 3 Col. 4 x 0.3 Col. 4 + Col. 5 0.3 Col. 6 x Col. 7 - *Col. 6 + Line of Best Fit (See Table L2) Col. 6 x 1.036 + $2,185,095 - 6 Pump Station (Facility) Per CPD Form Entries Pump Station Facility Construction Cost Curve BMP 4 Appendix H Col. 2 x Col 3 Col. 4 x 0.3 Col. 4 + Col. 5 0.3 Col. 6 x Col. 7 - 1.74 (Default) (See Table L2) Col. 6 x Col. 10 - 7 Pump Station (Forcemain) Per CPD Form Entries Forcemain Construction Unit Cost Chart BMP 4 Appendix I Col. 2 x Col 3 Col. 4 x 0.3 Col. 4 + Col. 5 0.3 Col. 6 x Col. 7 - 1.0 (See Table L2) Col. 6 x Col. 10 - 8 Public I/I Reduction (Sewers) Per CPD Form Entries I/I Reduction Unit Costs BMP 4 Appendix J Col. 2 x Col 3 Col. 4 x 0.3 Col. 4 + Col. 5 0.15 Col. 6 x Col. 7 - 1.0 (See Table L2) Col. 6 x Col. 10 - 9 Public I/I Reduction (Manholes) Per CPD Form Entries I/I Reduction Unit Costs BMP 4 Appendix J Col. 2 x Col 3 Col. 4 x 0.3 Col. 4 + Col. 5 0.15 Col. 6 x Col. 7 - (See Rows 9a through 9c) (Col. 6 x Col. 10) (for respective Rows 9a thru 9c) - .................................................................................................................................. Public I/I Reduction (Manholes) Items for NPW Computation .................................................................................................................................. 9a Manhole Cover – Missing Bolts Pick Holes (No Ponding) Pick Holes (Ponding) MH Cover – Per CPD Form Entry Per CPD Form Entry Per CPD Form Entry Manhole Cover – $ 40 per each $ 220 per each $ 1,650 per each MH Cover Const. Cost: (Col. 2** x Col 3**) **respective items MH Cover: Col. 4 x 0.3 MH Cover: Col. 4 + Col. 5 - - - MH Cover: 2.15 (See Table L2) MH Cover: Col. 6 x Col. 10 - 9b Manhole Frame – Broken Frame Seal/Rim Leak (No Ponding) Seal (Ponding) Manhole Frame – Per CPD Form Entry Per CPD Form Entry Per CPD Form Entry Manhole Frame – $ 700 per each $ 420 per each $ 2,130 per each MH Frame Const. Cost: (Col. 2** x Col 3**) **respective items MH Frame: Col. 4 x 0.3 MH Frame: Col. 4 + Col. 5 - - - MH Frame: 1.0 (See Table L2) MH Frame: Col. 6 x Col. 10 - 9c Manhole Structure Rehabilitation Per CPD Form Entry $1,870 per each MH Structure Rehab Const. Cost: Col. 2 x Col 3 MH Structure Rehab: Col. 4 x 0.3 MH Structure Rehab: Col. 4 + Col. 5 - - - MH Structure Rehab: 3.53 (See Table L2) MH Structure Rehab: Col. 6 x Col. 10 - .................................................................................................................................. Public I/I Reduction (Manholes) Items for NPW Computation .................................................................................................................................. 10 Private I/I Reduction Per CPD Form Entries I/I Reduction Unit Costs BMP 4 Appendix J Col. 2 x Col 3 Col. 4 x 0.3 Col. 4 + Col. 5 - $2,000 x # of defects - 1.0 (See Table L2) Col. 6 x Col. 10 - 11 Projected I/I Reduction** Per CPD Form Entries I/I Reduction Unit Costs BMP 4 Appendix J Col. 2 x Col 3 Col. 4 x 0.3 Col. 4 + Col. 5 0.20 Col. 6 x Col. 7 - 1.0 (See Table L2) Col. 6 x Col. 10 - 12 - Total Cost for Environmental Mitigation / Excessive Utility Conflict / Land Acquisition per CPD Form Entry - - - - Col. 3 - - - 13 TOTALS - - Rows 1 thru 11 Rows 1 thru 11 Rows 1 thru 11 - Rows 1 thru 12 Col. 6 + Col. 8 - Rows 1 thru 11 Col. 8 + Col. 11 *Equation used in lieu of Net Present Worth Factor **Not an actual construction category, although it functions as one for the determination of costs.
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SSO Control Plan Development Best Management Practices Manual BMP 4 – Cost Estimating Appendix L – Computations/Assumptions: Construction Costs – Net Present Worth L-2 October 5, 2011 Table L2. Basis for Net Present Worth Factors Life Cycle Assumptions (Note 1) Net Present Worth Factor Components Construction Category (Subcategory in parentheses) Annual O&M Expenses Periodic Replacement Expenses Salvage Construction O&M Replacement Salvage Net Present Worth Factor (Note 2) New Sewer None None None 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Sewer Rehabilitation None None None 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Tunnel None None Note 3 1.0 0.0 0.0 -(0.5) x 0.3823 = -0.19 0.81 Special Feature Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 1.0 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 Storage Facility Note 5 Note 6 None 1.0 3 MG: $46,500 x 31.81 6 MG: $49,080 x 31.81 10 MG: $50,500 x 31.81 3 MG: ($15,000 x 5.74) + ($550,000 x 1.73) 6 MG: ($20,000 x 5.74) + ($645,000 x 1.73) 10 MG: ($30,000 x 5.74) + ($775,000 x 1.73) 0.0 0.0 0.0 TCC + Line of Best Fit (Note 7) Pump Station (Facility) Note 8 Note 9 None 1.0 0.0146 x 31.81 = 0.46 (0.0308 x 4.24) + (0.0462 x 2.53) + (0.0492 x 0.62) = 0.28 0.0 1.74 (Note 10) Pump Station (Forcemain) None None None 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Public I/I Reduction (Sewers) None None None 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Public I/I Reduction (Manholes) None Note 11 None 1.0 0.0 Cover = 0.2 x 5.74 = 1.15 / Frame = 0.0 / Structure = 2.53 0.0 2.15 / 1.0 / 3.53 Private I/I Reduction None None None 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Projected I/I Reduction None None None 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 NOTES: 1. General Life Cycle Assumptions: • Planning Period = 50 years Inflation Rate = 3.0% Interest Rate = 5.0% Real Interest Rate = i = 1.94% • Credits are shown as negative numbers. For simplification, elimination of O&M costs and replacement costs attributable to the abandonment or demolition of an existing asset is ignored, and is partially offset by ‘0.0’ O&M expenses for many categories. • New sewers, sewer rehabilitation, pump station forcemains, and I/I reduction measures associated with sewers are assumed to have a design life of 50 years and minimal O&M expenses. Consequently, the associated Net Present Worth (NPW) Factor is assumed as 1.0, i.e., identical to the Total Construction Cost for the category or subcategory. The District is not responsible for O&M or replacement costs associated with Private I/I Reduction measures, so the NPW Factor for this category is also 1.0. • Additional life cycle assumptions applicable to specific construction categories are discussed in Notes 3 through 5 and 7 through 9 below. 2. The Net Present Worth (NPW) Factor is the sum of the respective Construction, O&M, Replacement, and Salvage component factors for the Construction Category. 3. Tunnels are assumed to have an asset life of 100 years. Assuming straight line depreciation, at the end of the 50-year planning period it will have a salvage value equal to one half (0.5) of its initial construction cost. To convert this ‘Year 50’ amount to ‘Year 0’ costs, it is multiplied by a Single Payment Present Worth Factor (SPPWF). For ‘i’ = 1.94% and ‘n’ (number of years) = 50, SPPWF = (1 + i)-n = 0.38. 4. Due to the nature of the construction category, the NPW Factor for Special Feature entries is determined on a case-by-case basis. The Cost Estimating Database default value of 1.0 should be adjusted as necessary by entering the desired factor in lieu of the default value at the Special Feature ‘NPW Factor’ field on the Data Entry Form. For additional guidance or resources in situations that may warrant adjustment of the NPW Factor contact the Section Manager. 5. Based on MSD Operations detailed budget estimates for currently planned mid-size storage facilities, annual O&M costs for a mid-size (6 million gallon (MG) storage facility are $49,080; to enable creation of a trend line, engineering judgment was used to adjust these costs for smaller (3 MG) and larger (10 MG) storage facilities. To convert these annual costs during ‘Year 1’ through ‘Year 50’ to ‘Year 0’ costs, the annual O&M cost is multiplied by a Uniform Series Present Worth Factor (USPWF). For ‘i’ = 1.94% and ‘n’ = 50, USPWF = [(1 + i)n – 1] ÷ [i x (1 + i)n] = 31.81. 6. Based on MSD Operations detailed budget estimates for currently planned mid-size storage facilities, odor control media is replaced every five years at a cost of approximately $20,000 and pumps, gates, and odor control equipment are replaced every 15 years at a cost of approximately $645,000. To enable creation of a trend line, engineering judgment was used to adjust these costs for smaller (3 million gallon (MG)) and larger (10 MG) storage facilities. To convert these periodic replacement costs to ‘Year 0’ costs, each discrete replacement cost is multiplied by the appropriate SPPWF. For ‘i’ = 1.94% and replacements at ‘n’ = 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, and 45, the ‘cumulative’ SPPWF is 5.74 (i.e., 0.9083 + 0.8250 + 0.7494 + 0.6807 + 0.6183 + 0.5616 + 0.5101 + 0.4634 + 0.4209). For ‘i’ = 1.94% and replacements at ‘n’ = 15, 30, and 45, the ‘cumulative’ SPPWF is 1.73 (i.e., 0.7494 + 0.5616 + 0.4209). 7. Net present worth values exclusive of the construction cost component (ordinate) for 3 MG, 6 MG, and 10 MG sizes were plotted versus respective Total Construction Costs (abscissa) at these three sizes. The resultant line of best fit (y = 0.036x + $2,185,095) is used to calculate the amount of net present worth contribution associated with O&M and replacement for any size of facility. This calculated amount is added to the Total Construction Cost to determine Net Present Worth. 8. Based on MSD Operations records and estimates for small and medium pump stations (peak design flowrate less than 1.7 mgd), annual O&M costs (including power) are approximately $9,500 (1.46% of Total Construction Cost). To convert these annual costs during ‘Year 1’ through ‘Year 50’ to ‘Year 0’ costs, the annual O&M cost is multiplied by a Uniform Series Present Worth Factor (USPWF). For ‘i’ = 1.94% and ‘n’ = 50, USPWF = 31.81. 9. Based on MSD Operations records and estimates for small- and medium-sized pump stations, pumps are replaced every seven years at a cost of approximately $20,000 (3.08% of Total Construction Cost), electrical items and controls are replaced every ten years at a cost of approximately $30,000 (4.62% of Total Construction Cost), and selected piping and structural features are replaced or refurbished every 25 years at a cost of approximately $32,000 (4.92% of Total Construction Cost). To convert these periodic replacement costs to ‘Year 0’ costs, each discrete replacement cost is multiplied by the appropriate SPPWF. For ‘i’ = 1.94% and replacements at ‘n’ = 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, and 49, the ‘cumulative’ SPPWF is 4.24 (i.e., 0.8740 + 0.7640 + 0.6677 + 0.5836 + 0.5101 + 0.4459 + 0.3897). For ‘i’ = 1.94% and replacements at ‘n’ = 10, 20, 30, and 40, the ‘cumulative’ SPPWF is 2.53 (i.e., 0.8250 + 0.6807 + 0.5616 + 0.4634). For ‘i’ = 1.94% and replacement at ‘n’ = 25, the SPPWF is 0.62. 10. For large pump stations (peak design flowrate greater than 1.7 mgd), the resultant Net Present Worth using this factor should be examined, and adjusted on a case-by-case basis if necessary. Adjustments can be made by entering the desired factor in lieu of the default value of 1.74 at the Pump Station Facility ‘NPW Factor’ field on the Data Entry Form. For additional guidance or resources in situations that may warrant adjustment of the NPW Factor contact the Section Manager. 11. To maintain I/I reduction benefits achieved by addressing manhole defects, periodic inspection and refurbishment of certain components are required. Specifically 20% of repaired manhole cover items require refurbishment every 5 years and all rehabilitated manhole structures require additional repair every 10 years; no periodic replacement expenses are associated with repaired manhole frames. Due to the itemized nature of this construction category and the diverse nature of replacement expenses, the Cost Estimating Database drills down to the individual I/I reduction items as illustrated in Table L1 to determine the Net Present Worth for the Public I/I Reduction (Manholes) subcategory. As documented in Note 5, for ‘i’ = 1.94% and replacements at ‘n’ = 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, and 45, the ‘cumulative’ SPPWF is 5.74; per Note 8, for ‘i’ = 1.94% and replacements at ‘n’ = 10, 20, 30, and 40, the ‘cumulative’ SPPWF is 2.53.