Recipient‟s Catalog No.
–
advance of the project‟s construction letting, often aids agency users in executing the models to predict a project‟s PE cost ratio. Modeling strategies included multiple linear prediction error for bridges‟ PE cost ratio, but interpretation of variable effects and sensitivity is difficult because of tDISCLAIMER ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
engineering design to deliver the best alternative. PE efforts begin years in advance of the project‟s
–





















TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES
–
–
–
– LIST OF TABLES Consistent with other researchers‟ definitions, PE in this study does not include ROW acquisition or specific PE cost estimate generated at the beginnning of each project‟s




State Auditors‟ report on highway projects‟ cost and schedule performance [Merri r‟s assessment of project costs.
Project Cost Component
Aggregate Estimated Costs (in millions)
Aggregate
Actual Costs
(in millions)
PE
$ 73.4
$ 117.1
ROW
$ 83.8
$ 148.7
Construction
$ 650.3
$ 1,020.3
Total
$ 807.5
$ 1,286.1



– all efforts required to prepare and deliver a project‟s environmental documents in the preconstruction required to produce the project‟s construction documents. The summation of these components is a project‟s total PE. All PE tasks occur in the preconstruction phase. The personnel involved in planning VTRC defined PE as “the development of a project and the expenses to be incurred when a project advances from planning to design to when the project design is complete.” The VTRC researchers noted “ROW and PE are the states‟ most difficult cost categories to estimate and often present the greatest challenges and deviations with the cost estimation process.” Most respondents reported that PE costs
“the work that goes into preparing a project for construction.”
. To verify that the template‟s PE cost curve was applicable for statewide use, estimate costs of design consultants‟ efforts. The model was based on data from 59 Illinois Department factor assigned to assess the anticipated difficulty level of design. Nassar‟s research did not address how this value was assigned, but did note that process was “controversial” [Nassar et al. 2005].




2015122081010118-10574810101510101010951510-2010158-20Hawaii-8Gransberg and others (2007) investigated the correlation of design fees to construction “ the initial estimate” termed CGIE. Using 31 projects of the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority (OTA), from the initial estimate. Gransberg‟s measurement of cost growth from the initial estimate was a
Gransberg‟s study provided quantitative data on design costs. However, the sample size was small. Of concluded “bridge design projects should command a relatively higher design fee than roadway projects
are approximately 80 percent of consultants‟ costs. This difference was found to be statistically house efforts required to prepare and supervise the consultants‟ contract. This supervisory effort
DOTs lack integrated databases making the data “less useful and less available.” Wilmot et al. suggests that DOTs would benefit from using “integrated client server databases” [Wilmot et al. 1999].Construction estimates are prepared at multiple times within a project‟s lifecycle. Few details are known definition should be “the primary characteristic to categorize estimate classes.” As a project progresses
estimating accuracy for each researcher‟s classification varies. Table 2.2 provides a comparative –
–
–






 

“on job”



sponsored software package [FHWA 2003]. Trns*port‟s Cost Estimating STabtabai, H., Alex, A. P., Tantash, M. (1999). “Preliminary Cost Estimation of Highway Construction using Neural Networks.”
Cheng, M., Tsai, H., Hsieh, W. (2008) “ Construction Projects using Evolutionary Fuzzy Neural Inference Model.”
Chou, J., Peng, M., Persad, K. R., O'Connor, J. T. (2006). “Quantity ch to Preliminary Cost Estimates for Highway Projects.”
Chou, J., Wang, L., Chong, W. K., O'Connor, J. T. (2005). “Preliminary Cost Projects.”
Gkritza, K., and Labi, S. (2008). “Estimating Cos Contracts: Multistep Econometric Approach.”
Hegazy, T., and Ayed, A. (1998). “Neural Network Model for Parametric Cost Estimation of Highway Projects.”
Kyte, C. A., Perfater, M. A., Haynes, S., Lee, H. W. (2004). “Developing and Validating a Tool to Estimate Highway Construction Project Costs.”
Molenaar, K. R. (2005). “Programmatic Cost Risk Analysis for Highway Megaprojects.”
Shaheen, A. A., Fayek, A. R., AbouRizk, S. M. (2007). “Fuzzy Numbers in Range Estimating.”
Williams, T. P. (2005). “Bidding Ratios to Predict Highway Project Costs.”
NCDOT‟s project 






OT prepares five types of construction cost estimates throughout the project‟s development [Lane et
Construction Estimate Description
Contingency Applied to Roadway Portion
Contingency Applied to Structure Portion
Feasibility
+55%
+15%
Functional
+45%
+15%
Preliminary
+35%
+10%
At ROW
+25%
+10%
Final Preliminary
+15%
+5% Factor analysis techniques are used to discover any underlying “factor” or hypothetical variable that “factors”. The first factor explains the greatest amoun
build project success could be forecast using three factors. To validate this proposition, five projects‟ that the regression results did not differ from the experts‟ evaluation
“rotated” so that the observed variables are loaded onto only one factor [Kim and Mueller 1
sought to identify factors influencing a contractor‟s cost estimating method. Survey respondents included four variables on their company‟s
PCA is a statistical technique. Interpretation of factor causal structure is the researchers‟ responsibility. Akintoye‟s thorough discussion of each factor emphasizes this responsibility [Akintoye 2000]. ustry Institute‟s efforts to improve the accuracy of early variables related to estimate preparation. These variables were then grouped to address the “who,” the “how,” and the “what” related to cost estimation. A fourth category, “other”, captured any variable that weighted to account for approximately 76 percent of a project‟s estimate score. The remaining six factors
using costs at completion of construction (termed “raw costs”) as the response (dependent) variable, since
l‟s error spread by model‟s error distribution for normality is also recommended. Lowe et al. reported that their backward
). Odeck‟s regression model only not identified in the regression model, influenced the variation in cost overruns. From his model‟s partial cribed in this section. Each researcher‟s cost focus, and 

Accuracy of estimates was determined at 4 stages of projects‟
































We accessed NCDOT‟s onli bridge projects let for construction during January 1, 2001 through June 30, 2009. We queried NCDOT‟s NCDOT‟s data for th
construction letting. These 461 bridge projects were all included in the NCDOT STIP with a “B” prefix
roject‟s PE costs and estimated STIP construction ‟s PE
–
project‟s PE –( )
(( )( )) ( )
( )( )


























■
■
■
■
■
■
■■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
electing the “best” model using
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Cost (in Thousands )
Year of Letting
STIP Estimated Construction Cost
PE Cost










Σ( )( ( ))






In section 8, we report each modeling strategy‟s predictive p









■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
s carried out on the variable “geographic area of state” with each of the four levels 






* + ( ) COAST (0.6092)
64 CE (0.3108)
45
B_EX_OFF
(0.5403)
30
DOT (0.8323)
6
PEF (0.6116)
24
B_EX_ON
(0.8770)
12
DOT (0.9328)
8
PEF (0.8447)
4
B_NEW
(0.9986)
3 DOT (N/A)
2 PEF (N/A)
1 PCE (0.1274)
19
B_EX_OFF
(0.4259)
17
DOT (0.4259)
17 PEF (N/A)
--
B_EX_ON
(N/A)
02 DOT (N/A)
02 PEF (N/A)
--
B_NEW
(N/A)
-- DOT (N/A)
-- PEF (N/A)
--
MTN
(0.3957)
52
CE
(0.2338)
43 B_EX_OFF (0.7492)
12 DOT (N/A)
1
PEF (0.8728)
11 B_EX_ON (0.8741)
9
DOT (0.8233)
7 PEF
2 B_NEW (0.5233)
22
DOT (0.8635)
10
PEF (0.7338)
12 PCE (0.8812)
9
B_EX_OFF
(0.8637)
9
DOT (0.8812)
9 PEF (N/A)
--
B_EX_ON
(N/A)
- DOT (N/A)
-- PEF (N/A)
--
B_NEW
(N/A)
- DOT (N/A)
-- PEF (N/A)
--
PDMT
(0.2361)
182
CE
(0.1912)
121 B_EX_OFF (0.1008)
49 DOT (0.2791)
19 PEF (0.1480)
30 B_EX_ON (0.6125)
36
DOT (0.1927)
16
PEF (0.8082)
20 B_NEW (0.4560)
36 DOT (0.6166)
22 PEF (0.6712)
14
PCE
(0.1313)
61 B_EX_OFF (0.1150)
57 DOT (0.1150)
57 PEF (N/A)
--
B_EX_ON
(N/A)
1 DOT (N/A)
1 PEF (N/A)
-- B_NEW (0.9942)
3
DOT (0.6110)
2 PEF (N/A)
1
V MTN
(0.4861)
47
CE
(0.2610)
44 B_EX_OFF (0.8695)
11
DOT (0.9973)
4
PEF (0.3769)
7 B_EX_ON (0.9062)
9 DOT (N/A)
1
PEF (0.4510)
8 B_NEW (0.3819)
24 DOT (0.8557)
13
PEF (0.3475)
11 PCE (0.8291)
3
B_EX_OFF
(0.9383)
3 DOT (N/A)
2 PEF (N/A)
1
B_EX_ON
(N/A)
-- DOT (N/A)
-- PEF (N/A)
--
B_NEW
(N/A)
-- DOT (N/A)
-- PEF (N/A)
--
Total Projects
345
345
345
345 ed in yellow, and all the cells with hatchings are considered “no applicable.”
noted earlier, the equation for COAST applies for the “bad fit” cells in Table 4.5.–
––
––project‟s PE authorization date is required to determine an actual PE duration. Therefore, we analyzed a
ratio is referred to as the project‟s PE [Sakia 1992] to the roadway projects‟ P( )
(( )( )) ( )
( )( )
–














■
■
■
■
■
■
■
–
β
β
β
β
β
β
β
β β β β β β β
β
β
β
β
β
β
β
β β β β β β β– –
Σ( )( ( ))
test for differences among the variable‟s levels. If differences between levels were not supported were combined with new location scope projects. Projects classified as “other”



darkly shaded in Table 5.10 and identified as the “Good Fit” cells. Their adjusted R
model. These two subgroups are lightly shaded in Table 5.10, are identified as “Poor Fit” cells, and of another group are measured in two levels such as „tall‟ and „short‟. The othθŷ ŷ′
l l“t” “v” “c”ŷ
[y (actual) versus ŷ (estimate)]The research team‟s programmer used
runtime libraries need to be installed on the user‟s computer before executing the interface software.





licking on the “” button located in the upper right corner of the screen. Movement is advanced by the “NEXT>>” action button positioned along the bottom of the –“Select an existing project”
on the third interface screen shown in Figure 7.3. The project‟s STIP estimated construction cost and de a project‟s estimated construction cost and estimated
estimated PE cost (in $) based on the user‟s input of estimated project construction cost.
–––te by pressing the “CALCULATE” action button along the bottom of the screen. This action directs the interface to pass the user‟s inputs to the appropriate modeling library. An estimate for a project‟s PE cost ratio and PE cost (in $) is generated. The
In addition, an archive text file is generated, date stamped, and saved in the tool‟s directory. The archived PROJECT SUMMARY
1. BASIC INFORMATION
Project Name: B-12345
Project Description: Sample Bridge
Project Type: Bridge Project
Prediction Model: Regression Model
2. COST DETAILS
Right of Way Portion Cost:($) 181000
STIP Estimated Construction Cost:($) 675000
Roadway % of STIP Est. Const. Cost: 0.314
Structure % of STIP Est. Const. Cost: 0.000
3. CLASSIFICATION
Project Scope: Replacement with Off-Site Detour
Road System: Arterial
Structure Type: Bridge
4. DIMENSIONAL PARAMETERS
Project Length(miles): 0.193 miles
Number of Spans: 3
5. ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS
NEPA Document Classification: Categorical Exclusion
Planning Document Responsible Party: PEF
6. GEOGRAPHICAL PARAMETERS
NCDOT Division: 06
Geographical Area of State: Coast
Classification of Route: Rural Class
7. RESULTS
PE Cost Ratio Regression(proportion): 0.367
PE Cost Regression: $247,550
[y (actual) versus ŷ (estimate)]
modeling routine is called upon for prediction computations based on the user‟s selections as described in [y (actual) versus ŷ (estimate)]––











orf, W. (2010). “Development of a Regression Model to Predict Preliminary Engineering Costs.” Institute of Transportation –

“Predicting Preliminary Engineering Costs for Bridge Projects.” –
“ ctivities for Bridge Projects.” (Future c

“Predict Bridge Projects.”
“Regression odeling of Roadway Projects‟ P Cost and Duration.”
“Estimating Preliminary Enginee Model.” “ ” AACE International Recommended
“Estimating the Cost of Capital Projects: An Empirical Study of Accuracy Levels for Municipal Government Projects.”
“ ”
“Highway Project Cost Estimating and Management for the ”
“Final Report for NCHRP Report 574: .”
Benzi, R., Parisi, G., Sutera, A., and Vulpiani, A. (1983). “A theory of stochastic resonance in climatic change.” –
Breslow, N. E. and Clayton, D. G. (1993). “Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models.” –
“Compressing Construction Durations: Lessons ”
and Li, K. (1998). “Can SIR be as Popular as Multiple Linear Regression?”
Cohen, J. (1968). “Multiple Regression as a General Data Analytic System.” Psychological Bulletin,
, R. A. (2006). “Introducing the GLMSELECT PROCEDURE for Model Selection.” Proceedings
Cox, D. and Carroll, J. (2010). “Planning Level Cost Estimation – Georgia DOT‟s Innovative Processes ” Proceedings
FHWA (2003). “FHWA Division Responses to Cost Estimating Questions.”
. “ ” Political –. “ ” –
. “ ” –
“ ”
Gross, K. (2008). “ST 512 Course Materials (Fall 2008).” North Carolina State University,
Hamby, D. M. (1994). “A Review of Techniques for Parameter Sensitivity Analysis of Environmental Models.”
Hannah, L. A., Blei, D. M., and Powell, W. B. (2010). “Dirichlet process mi models.”
“ .”
and Niemeier, D. A. (2006). “Evaluating the Effectiveness of State Department of ”
“Estimating Performance Time for Construction Projects.”
berty, C. P. (2000). “Estimating mixtures of regressions.”
“Notice Ratings as a Management Tool to Reduce Truck Rollovers on Ramps.” –
King, G., Keohane, R.O., and Verba, S. (1994). “Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in ”
Knight, K. and Fayek, A. R. (2002). “Use of Fuzzy Logic for Predicting Design Cost Overruns on Building Projects.”
“ ”
Kyte, C. A., Perfater, M. A., Haynes, S., and Lee, H. W. (2004b). “Developing and Validating a Tool to Estimate Highway Construction Project Costs.”
“ ” Lowe, D. J., Emsley, M. W., Harding, A. (2006). “Predicting Construction Cost using Multiple Regression Techniques.”
“Sufficient Sample Sizes for Multilevel Modeling.”
“Collinearity, Power, and Interpretation of Multiple ”
“Laying the Foundation for a Successful Transformation.”
McNamara, B. and Wiesenfeld, K. (1989). “Theory of stochastic resonance.” –
Merritt, Leslie W. Jr. (2008). “Performance Audit. Department of Transportation .”
Mukhopadhyay, S. and Gelfand, A. E. (1997). “Dirichlet process mixed generalized linear models.” –
“ ”
“Webpage: How a Road Gets Built.”
“Webpage: – Delivery Rate.”
“Webpage: .”
“Webpage: ”
“Webpage: ”
“Webpage: .”
“Webpage: .” “ ”
Odeck, J. (2003). “Cost Overruns in Road Construction – Determinants?”
PDEA. (2008). “Meeting with PDEA Eastern Branch Members , B.” North Carolina Department of Tr
Picard, R. R. and Cook, D. R. (1984). “Cross Validation of Regression Models.”
Sakia, R. M. (1992). “The Box Cox Transformation Technique: A Review.”
Schexnayder, C. J., Weber, S. L., and Fiori C. (2003). “Project Cost Estimating – Highway Practice.”
81). “Some Suggestions for Measuring Predictive Performance.”
“Information as a Unifying Modeling Procedures.” Northeast SAS Users Group NESUG ’97 Proceedings
SLNC. (2008). “Webpage: State Library Catalogs.” State Library of North Carolina.
Snijders, T. A. B. (2005). “Power and Sample Size in Multilevel Linear Models.” –
“Modeling Multilevel Data Structur ”
Stephens, M. (2000). “Dealing with label switching in mixture models.” –
“ .”
Tu, J. (1996). “Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Artificial Neural Networks versus Logistic Regression for Predicting Medical Outcomes.”
1974). “Quasi newton method.” –“ ”
WSDOT. (2002). “Highway Construction Cost Comparison Survey.” Washington State Department of –
–
–
–
–
–
––
–
–
–
–
–
––
–
–
–
–
–
––
–
–
–
–
–
––
–
–
–
–
–
––
–
–
–
–
–
––
–
–
–
–
–
––
–
–
–
–
–
––
–
–
–
–
–
––
–
–
–
–
–
––
–
–
–
–
–
––
–
–
–
–
–
–A database for 25 “R” projects consisting of the PE expenses was acquired from NCDOT-$5,000
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
CONTR ENGINEERING SERV
COMP SUPP SERV EXPENSE
MATL TEST & GEO INVESTN
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
CONSTR PLAN PREPARATION
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
COMP SUPP SERV EXPENSE
REVIEW OF CONTR ENG SER
COMP SUPP SERV EXPENSE
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
PROJ MGMT SYSTEM COSTS
PROJ MGMT SYSTEM COSTS
PROJ MGMT SYSTEM COSTS
PROJ MGMT SYSTEM COSTS
PROJ MGMT SYSTEM COSTS
PROJ MGMT SYSTEM COSTS
RIGHT-OF-WAY SURVEYS
CONSTR PLAN PREPARATION
CONSTR PLAN PREPARATION
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
CONSTR PLAN PREPARATION
OFC ACT-LOCATION SURVEYS
CONSTR PLAN PREPARATION
REVIEW OF CONTR ENG SER
CONSTR PLAN PREPARATION
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
REVIEW OF CONTR ENG SER
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
Breakdown of expenditure over entire PE phase for R-2405
Amount spent-$1,000
$4,000
$9,000
$14,000
$19,000
$24,000
$29,000
MAP & PHO…
MATL TEST &…
FIELD SURVEYS
COMP SUPP…
CONTR…
REVIEW OF…
ROW PLAN…
BSIP PROJECT…
REVIEW OF…
CONSTR PLAN…
COMP SUPP…
CONTR…
PRELIMINARY…
MATL TEST &…
FIELD SURVEYS
BSIP PROJECT…
ROW PLAN…
MATL TEST &…
BSIP PROJECT…
PRELIMINARY…
COMP SUPP…
REVIEW OF…
MATL TEST &…
Special…
CONSTR PLAN…
PROJ MGMT…
Special…
MISC SERV OR…
MATL TEST &…
MATL TEST &…
MATL TEST &…
MATL TEST &…
CONTR…
FIELD SURVEYS
PRELIMINARY…
Breakdown of expenditure over entire PE phase for R-3427
Amount spent
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
$450,000
FLYING
PHOTOGRAPHY
RIGHT-OF-WAY…
ROW PLAN…
REVIEW OF…
MISCELLANEOUS…
COMP SUPP…
RIGHT-OF-WAY…
CONSTR PLAN…
PAYMENTS TO…
COMP SUPP…
MATL TEST &…
MATL TEST &…
BSIP PROJECT…
COMP SUPP…
COMP SUPP…
MATL TEST &…
REVIEW OF…
Special…
BSIP PROJECT…
MATL TEST &…
Special…
COMP SUPP…
BSIP PROJECT…
PRELIMINARY…
BSIP PROJECT…
PRELIMINARY…
Special…
COMP SUPP…
PRELIMINARY…
Special…
PRELIMINARY…
PRELIMINARY…
PRELIMINARY…
CONSTR PLAN…
CONSTR PLAN…
CONSTR PLAN…
CONSTR PLAN…
R-2907
Amount spent$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
$180,000
$200,000
FLYING
PROP DATA FOR LOCN SURV
OFC ACT-LOCATION SURVEYS
PHOTOGRAPHY
MAP & PHO SHEET AND XECT
FIELD SURVEYS
RIGHT-OF-WAY SURVEYS
MATL TEST & GEO INVESTN
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
ROW PLAN PREPARATION
CONSTR PLAN PREPARATION
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PMII PROJECT COST
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
COMP SUPP SERV EXPENSE
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
PMII PROJECT COST
COMP SUPP SERV EXPENSE
CONSTR PLAN PREPARATION
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
COMP SUPP SERV EXPENSE
Special Assessments
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
MATL TEST & GEO INVESTN
Break down of expenditure over entire PE phase for R-2207
Amount spent-$100,000
-$50,000
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
MAP & PHO SHEET AND XECT
REVIEW OF CONTR ENG SER
MAP & PHO SHEET AND XECT
CONTR ENGINEERING SERV
OFC ACT-LOCATION SURVEYS
REVIEW OF CONTR ENG SER
OFC ACT-LOCATION SURVEYS
ROW PLAN PREPARATION
Not assigned
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
ROW PLAN PREPARATION
Special Assessments
CONSTR PLAN PREPARATION
Special Assessments
CONTR ENGINEERING SERV
MATL TEST & GEO INVESTN
COMP SUPP SERV EXPENSE
CONSTR PLAN PREPARATION
COMP SUPP SERV EXPENSE
CONTR ENGINEERING SERV
PROJ MGMT SYSTEM COSTS
REVIEW OF CONTR ENG SER
PROJ MGMT SYSTEM COSTS
REVIEW OF CONTR ENG SER
RIGHT-OF-WAY SURVEYS
REVIEW OF CONTR ENG SER
ROW PLAN PREPARATION
OFC ACT-LOCATION SURVEYS
OFC ACT-LOCATION SURVEYS
ROW PLAN PREPARATION
REVIEW OF CONTR ENG SER
REVIEW OF CONTR ENG SER
CONSTR PLAN PREPARATION
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
REVIEW OF CONTR ENG SER
OFC ACT-LOCATION SURVEYS
CONSTR PLAN PREPARATION
SAL & EXP PE PERS UTIL.
FIELD SURVEYS
FIELD SURVEYS
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
MATL TEST & GEO INVESTN
OFC ACT-LOCATION SURVEYS
MATL TEST & GEO INVESTN
MATL TEST & GEO INVESTN
MAP & PHO SHEET AND XECT
OFC ACT-LOCATION SURVEYS
REVIEW OF CONTR ENG SER
ROW PLAN PREPARATION
MATL TEST & GEO INVESTN
PROP DATA FOR LOCN SURV
ROW PLAN PREPARATION
ROW PLAN PREPARATION
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
ROW PLAN PREPARATION
ROW PLAN PREPARATION
MATL TEST & GEO INVESTN
PROP DATA FOR LOCN SURV
REVIEW OF CONTR ENG SER
CONSTR PLAN PREPARATION
REVIEW OF CONTR ENG SER
MISCELLANEOUS INVESTIGNS
CONSTR PLAN PREPARATION
CONSTR PLAN PREPARATION
ROW PLAN PREPARATION
FIELD SURVEYS
REVIEW OF CONTR ENG SER
MATL TEST & GEO INVESTN
SAL & EXP PE PERS UTIL.
FIELD SURVEYS
REVIEW OF CONTR ENG SER
MATL TEST & GEO INVESTN
SAL & EXP PE PERS UTIL.
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
SAL & EXP PE PERS UTIL.
RIGHT-OF-WAY SURVEYS
CONTR ENGINEERING SERV
FIELD SURVEYS
CONSTR PLAN PREPARATION
OFC ACT-LOCATION SURVEYS
ROW PLAN PREPARATION
Internal Order Settlement
MATL TEST & GEO INVESTN
REVIEW OF CONTR ENG SER
MATL TEST & GEO INVESTN
SAL & EXP PE PERS UTIL.
Breakdown of PE expenditure over entire PE phase for
R-2248
Amount spent$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
FIELD SURVEYS
MATL TEST & GEO…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
ROW PLAN…
CONSTR PLAN…
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PMII PROJECT COST
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
COMP SUPP SERV…
FIELD SURVEYS
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
CONSTR PLAN…
PMII PROJECT COST
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
COMP SUPP SERV…
FIELD SURVEYS
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
FIELD SURVEYS
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
CONSTR PLAN…
COMP SUPP SERV…
CONSTR PLAN…
COMP SUPP SERV…
Special Assessments
REVIEW OF CONTR…
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
COMP SUPP SERV…
CONTR ENGINEERING…
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
COMP SUPP SERV…
Special Assessments
CONSTR PLAN…
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
COMP SUPP SERV…
Special Assessments
Breakdown of expenditure over entire PE phase for R-3807
Amount spent$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
OFC ACT-LOCATION…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
COMP SUPP SERV…
RIGHT-OF-WAY SURVEYS
CONSTR PLAN…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
CONTR ENGINEERING…
COMP SUPP SERV…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
COMP SUPP SERV…
REVIEW OF CONTR ENG…
COMP SUPP SERV…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
Special Assessments
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
REVIEW OF CONTR ENG…
COMP SUPP SERV…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
REVIEW OF CONTR ENG…
COMP SUPP SERV…
MATL TEST & GEO…
CONSTR PLAN…
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
Not assigned
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
CONTR ENGINEERING…
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
OFC ACT-LOCATION…
CONSTR PLAN…
REVIEW OF CONTR ENG…
COMP SUPP SERV…
MATL TEST & GEO…
CONSTR PLAN…
REVIEW OF CONTR ENG…
COMP SUPP SERV…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
CONTR ENGINEERING…
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
Special Assessments
CONSTR PLAN…
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
Special Assessments
MAP & PHO SHEET AND…
CONSTR PLAN…
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
Special Assessments
RIGHT-OF-WAY SURVEYS
REVIEW OF CONTR ENG…
COMP SUPP SERV…
PROJ MGMT SYSTEM…
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
Special Assessments
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
REVIEW OF CONTR ENG…
Breakdown of PE expenditure over entire PE phase for R-3303
Amount spent$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
$100,000
PROP DATA FOR…
ROW PLAN…
FIELD SURVEYS
COMP SUPP SERV…
CONSTR PLAN…
CONSTR PLAN…
CONSTR PLAN…
CONSTR PLAN…
CONSTR PLAN…
COMP SUPP SERV…
PROP DATA FOR…
MISC SERV OR…
PRELIMINARY…
PRELIMINARY…
Not assigned
MATL TEST & GEO…
MATL TEST & GEO…
Special…
Special…
PROJ MGMT…
PROJ MGMT…
COMP SUPP SERV…
PRELIMINARY…
PROJ MGMT…
BSIP PROJECT…
PRELIMINARY…
MATL TEST & GEO…
PRELIMINARY…
CONSTR PLAN…
PRELIMINARY…
PRELIMINARY…
PRELIMINARY…
PRELIMINARY…
CONSTR PLAN…
PRELIMINARY…
OFC ACT-…
PRELIMINARY…
ROW PLAN…
RE-DESIGN
MISC SERV OR…
Breakdown of PE expenditure over entire PE phase for R-3415
Amount spent$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
MATL TEST & GEO INVESTN
SAL & EXP PE PERS UTIL.
FIELD SURVEYS
OFC ACT-LOCATION…
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
CONSTR PLAN…
ROW PLAN PREPARATION
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
CONSTR PLAN…
MATL TEST & GEO INVESTN
MATL TEST & GEO INVESTN
COMP SUPP SERV EXPENSE
ROW PLAN PREPARATION
FIELD SURVEYS
SAL & EXP PE PERS UTIL.
ROW PLAN PREPARATION
Special Assessments
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
CONSTR PLAN…
FIELD SURVEYS
PROJ MGMT SYSTEM COSTS
Special Assessments
Special Assessments
FIELD SURVEYS
CONSTR PLAN…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
REVIEW OF CONTR ENG SER
SAL & EXP PE PERS UTIL.
PROP DATA FOR LOCN SURV
REVIEW OF CONTR ENG SER
FIELD SURVEYS
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
CONSTR PLAN…
CONSTR PLAN…
CONSTR PLAN…
Breakdown of PE expenditure over entire PE phase for R-2904
Amount spent-$20,000
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
$180,000
$200,000
FLYING
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
COMP SUPP SERV…
MAP & PHO SHEET…
COMP SUPP SERV…
Special Assessments
COMP SUPP SERV…
Special Assessments
REVIEW OF CONTR…
PROJ MGMT SYSTEM…
ROW PLAN…
Special Assessments
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
ROW PLAN…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
REVIEW OF CONTR…
OFC ACT-LOCATION…
PHOTOGRAPHY
FIELD SURVEYS
CONSTR PLAN…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
ROW PLAN…
OFC ACT-LOCATION…
OFC ACT-LOCATION…
CONTR ENGINEERING…
OFC ACT-LOCATION…
CONSTR PLAN…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
CONSTR PLAN…
REVIEW OF CONTR…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
FIELD SURVEYS
Not assigned
REVIEW OF CONTR…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
REVIEW OF CONTR…
REVIEW OF CONTR…
Breakdown of PE expenditure over entire PE phase for R-2823
Amount spent-$100,000
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
PROP DATA FOR…
MAP & PHO…
RIGHT-OF-WAY…
PRELIMINARY…
CONSTR PLAN…
REVIEW OF…
PUBLIC HEARINGS
MISCELLANEOUS…
BSIP PROJECT…
OFC ACT-…
CONSTR PLAN…
REVIEW OF…
BSIP PROJECT…
CONTR…
CONTR…
CONTR…
CONSTR PLAN…
OFC ACT-…
CONTR…
OFC ACT-…
COMP SUPP SERV…
BSIP PROJECT…
Special…
CONTR…
COMP SUPP SERV…
CONTR…
COMP SUPP SERV…
CONSTR PLAN…
COMP SUPP SERV…
CONSTR PLAN…
COMP SUPP SERV…
CONSTR PLAN…
COMP SUPP SERV…
CONSTR PLAN…
COMP SUPP SERV…
PRELIMINARY…
BSIP PROJECT…
Special…
CONSTR PLAN…
COMP SUPP SERV…
PROJ MGMT…
BSIP PROJECT…
Special…
CONSTR PLAN…
COMP SUPP SERV…
PROJ MGMT…
BSIP PROJECT…
Special…
CONSTR PLAN…
CONSTR PLAN…
CONSTR PLAN…
REVIEW OF…
Breakdown of PE expenditure over entire PE phase for R-2643
Amount spent$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
MATL TEST & GEO…
COMP SUPP SERV…
REVIEW OF CONTR…
REVIEW OF CONTR…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
Special Assessments
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
COMP SUPP SERV…
REVIEW OF CONTR…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
Special Assessments
REVIEW OF CONTR…
MATL TEST & GEO…
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
Special Assessments
CONTR ENGINEERING…
COMP SUPP SERV…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
COMP SUPP SERV…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
COMP SUPP SERV…
MATL TEST & GEO…
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
MATL TEST & GEO…
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
MATL TEST & GEO…
REVIEW OF CONTR…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
FIELD SURVEYS
REVIEW OF CONTR…
CONSTR PLAN…
MATL TEST & GEO…
REVIEW OF CONTR…
CONSTR PLAN…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
REVIEW OF CONTR…
CONSTR PLAN…
FIELD SURVEYS
CONSTR PLAN…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
RIGHT-OF-WAY…
REVIEW OF CONTR…
FIELD SURVEYS
CONSTR PLAN…
RIGHT-OF-WAY…
REVIEW OF CONTR…
MATL TEST & GEO…
SAL & EXP PE PERS…
RIGHT-OF-WAY…
CONSTR PLAN…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
MATL TEST & GEO…
REVIEW OF CONTR…
CONSTR PLAN…
REVIEW OF CONTR…
CONSTR PLAN…
ROW PLAN…
MATL TEST & GEO…
SAL & EXP PE PERS…
REVIEW OF CONTR…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
FIELD SURVEYS
REVIEW OF CONTR…
CONSTR PLAN…
MATL TEST & GEO…
OFC ACT-LOCATION…
MATL TEST & GEO…
MATL TEST & GEO…
MATL TEST & GEO…
CONSTR PLAN…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
CONSTR PLAN…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
MISC SERV OR…
MATL TEST & GEO…
MATL TEST & GEO…
MATL TEST & GEO…
MISC SERV OR…
MATL TEST & GEO…
MATL TEST & GEO…
MATL TEST & GEO…
REVIEW OF CONTR…
FIELD SURVEYS
REVIEW OF CONTR…
REVIEW OF CONTR…
REVIEW OF CONTR…
CONTR ENGINEERING…
REVIEW OF CONTR…
Breakdown of PE expenditure over entire PE phase for R-2616
Amount spent$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
Breakdown of expenditure over entire PE phase for R-2604
Amount spent$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
$4,500
$5,000
CONTR ENGINEERING
SERV
COMP SUPP SERV
EXPENSE
ROW PLAN
PREPARATION
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
COMP SUPP SERV
EXPENSE
Special Assessments
Breakdown of PE expenditure over entire PE phase for R-2600
Amount spent$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
FLYING
PHOTOGRAPHY
RIGHT-OF-WAY…
ROW PLAN…
REVIEW OF…
PMII PROJECT…
COMP SUPP…
PRELIMINARY…
CONTR…
BSIP PROJECT…
ROW PLAN…
CONSTR PLAN…
PRELIMINARY…
BSIP PROJECT…
COMP SUPP…
REVIEW OF…
COMP SUPP…
CONSTR PLAN…
ROW PLAN…
UTIL MAKE-…
CONSTR PLAN…
CONSTR PLAN…
BSIP PROJECT…
PRELIMINARY…
COMP SUPP…
ROW PLAN…
COMP SUPP…
ROW PLAN…
Special…
REVIEW OF…
Special…
BSIP PROJECT…
CONSTR PLAN…
BSIP PROJECT…
PROJ MGMT…
COMP SUPP…
CONSTR PLAN…
COMP SUPP…
CONSTR PLAN…
Special…
CONSTR PLAN…
Special…
ROW PLAN…
CONSTR PLAN…
OFC ACT-…
PRELIMINARY…
OFC ACT-…
ROW PLAN…
PRELIMINARY…
PRELIMINARY…
SAL & EXP PE…
CONSTR PLAN…
CONSTR PLAN…
PRELIMINARY…
PRELIMINARY…
OFC ACT-…
CONSTR PLAN…
CONSTR PLAN…
PRELIMINARY…
ROW PLAN…
RIGHT-OF-WAY…
OFC ACT-…
CONSTR PLAN…
CONSTR PLAN…
ROW PLAN…
ROW PLAN…
PRELIMINARY…
CONSTR PLAN…
PRELIMINARY…
OFC ACT-…
PRELIMINARY…
CONSTR PLAN…
CONSTR PLAN…
PRELIMINARY…
CONSTR PLAN…
PRELIMINARY…
CONSTR PLAN…
CONSTR PLAN…
Internal Order…
CONSTR PLAN…
PRELIMINARY…
PRELIMINARY…
Breakdown of PE expenditure over entire PE phase for R-2555
Amount spent-$50,000
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
OFC ACT-LOCATION…
MAP & PHO SHEET…
MATL TEST & GEO…
ROW PLAN…
CONTR…
REVIEW OF CONTR…
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
Special Assessments
MATL TEST & GEO…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
ROW PLAN…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
MATL TEST & GEO…
MATL TEST & GEO…
FIELD SURVEYS
OFC ACT-LOCATION…
PROJ MGMT…
PROJ MGMT…
Special Assessments
OFC ACT-LOCATION…
PHOTOGRAPHY
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
OFC ACT-LOCATION…
FIELD SURVEYS
CONSTR PLAN…
REVIEW OF CONTR…
REVIEW OF CONTR…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
CONSTR PLAN…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
FIELD SURVEYS
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
CONSTR PLAN…
CONSTR PLAN…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
CONSTR PLAN…
CONSTR PLAN…
CONSTR PLAN…
CONTR…
Breakdown of PE expenditure over entire PE phase for R-2552
Amount spent$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
Breakdown of expenditure over entire PE phase for R-2538
Amount spent$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
Breakdown of expenditure over entire PE phase for R-2517
Amount spent$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
$180,000
Breakdown of expenditure over entire PE phase for R-2302
Amount spent$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
FLYING
PROP DATA FOR LOCN…
OFC ACT-LOCATION…
MAP & PHO SHEET…
FIELD SURVEYS
RIGHT-OF-WAY SURVEYS
MATL TEST & GEO…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
ROW PLAN…
CONSTR PLAN…
CONCEPT RELOC ADV…
PUBLIC HEARINGS
MISCELLANEOUS…
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
REVIEW OF CONTR…
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
COMP SUPP SERV…
Special Assessments
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
COMP SUPP SERV…
Not assigned
REVIEW OF CONTR…
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
COMP SUPP SERV…
Special Assessments
PROJ MGMT SYSTEM…
REVIEW OF CONTR…
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
COMP SUPP SERV…
Special Assessments
PROJ MGMT SYSTEM…
MATL TEST & GEO…
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
COMP SUPP SERV…
Special Assessments
MATL TEST & GEO…
CONTR ENGINEERING…
MATL TEST & GEO…
REVIEW OF CONTR…
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
SAL & EXP PE PERS UTIL.
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
FIELD SURVEYS
REVIEW OF CONTR…
MATL TEST & GEO…
Breakdown of PE expenditure over entire PE phase for R-2236
Amount spent$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
COMP SUPP SERV EXPENSE
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
COMP SUPP SERV EXPENSE
Special Assessments
Special Assessments
CONSTR PLAN PREPARATION
BSIP PROJECT COSTS
COMP SUPP SERV EXPENSE
Special Assessments
Breakdown of PE expenditure over entire PE phase for R-2213
Amount spent