estimating manual

RTA Project Estimating Issued December 2001 Edition 1, Revision 0

PROJECT ESTIMATING

Prepared by Project Management Office Document No. RTA-CSD-PMS-PR-M-02

© Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales, 2001

• • • •••

(This page intentionally left blank)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTI1.1 Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11.2 Glossary of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2

ON

2 OVERVIEW OF RTA REQUIRE2.1 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1

MENTS

2.2 RTA Estimating Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.22.3 Responsibilities and Approvals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.52.4 Relevant Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.82.5 Project Stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.92.6 Presentation of Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9

3 ESTIMATING APPROACH3.1 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.13.2 Types of Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.13.3 Methods of Estimating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.43.4 Definition of Project Scope and Constraints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.83.5 Constructability and Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.123.6 Asset Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.133.7 Occupational Health, Safety & Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.133.8 Environmental Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.143.9 Traffic Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.153.10 Risk & Contingency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.153.11 Value Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.193.12 Use of Historical Cost Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.203.13 Quality Assurance in Estimating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.223.14 Guidelines for Preparing Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.24

4 ESTIMATE COMPONENTS4.1 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.14.2 Project Development Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.14.3 Detailed Investigation and Design Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.24.4 Property Acquisition Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.24.5 Infrastructure Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.44.6 Utilities Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.44.7 Handover Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5

5 STRATEGIC ESTIMATE5.1 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.15.2 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.15.3 Preliminary Project Appreciation Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.15.4 Estimate Establishment Stage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.35.5 Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5

5.6 Concurrence, Approval and Acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5

6 CONCEPT ESTIMATE6.1 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.16.2 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.16.3 Preliminary Project Appreciation Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.16.4 Estimate Establishment Stage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.36.5 Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.66.6 Concurrence, Approval and Acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6

7 DETAILED ESTIMATE7.1 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.17.2 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.17.3 Preliminary Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.17.4 Project Appreciation Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.47.5 Estimate Establishment Stage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.57.6 Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.107.7 Concurrence, Approval and Acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.11

8 PROJECT COMPLETION FEEDBACK8.1 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1

9 CONTRACT VARIATIONS9.1 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.19.2 Contract Variations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1

10 ESTIMATING SOFTWARE10.1 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.110.2 Estimating Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.110.3 Risk Quantification Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5

LIST OF APPENDICES

Note: Appendices listed hereunder are contained at the ends of the chapters with which they are associated (eg Appendix 2.1 is contained at the end of Chapter 2)

Appendix 2.1 Standard Summary Structure for development Project Estimates

Appendix 5.1 Sample Cost Estimate Scope

Appendix 5.2 Sample Work Breakdown Structure

Appendix 5.3 Sample Strategic Estimate Report

Appendix 5.4 Verification Checklist

Appendix 5.5 Estimate Approval and Acceptance Form



Appendix 6.3 Sample Concept Estimate Report




Appendix 7.2 Sample Verbal Quotation Record

Appendix 7.3 Sample Site Visit Checklist


Appendix 7.5 Sample Estimate Review Sheet

Appendix 7.6 Sample Detailed Estimate Report



Appendix 8.1 Procedure RTA-CSD-PMS-PR-P-48

• • • •••


RTA Project Estimating Introduction 1 - 1 Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

• • • •••

C H A P T E R 1CHAPTER 0INTRODUCTION

1.1 Applicability

This manual has been produced for the purpose of both preparation andreview of estimates for RTA projects. It is applicable to a wide rangeof RTA projects, delivery systems and complexity of estimates, fromsmall maintenance projects undertaken by RTA’s own workforce tomajor infrastructure projects delivered by private funding andconstruction.

The background and experience of personnel preparing or reviewingestimates for RTA is widely varied. The manual is intended to be aconcise, hands-on, user friendly document which will provide theperson responsible for preparation of the estimate with sufficientguidance to satisfactorily produce a reliable estimate. For theexperienced estimator, the manual provides data and guidance on RTAspecific estimating terminology, requirements and estimatepresentation formats.

While the manual is complimentary to other RTA publications anddocuments, it is intended to essentially stand alone, without the need tocontinually locate and refer to other documents. For this reason,relevant important information from other RTA documents has beenreproduced in this manual.

The manual contains requirements, and utilises terminology andfeatures, specific to RTA. It is not intended for use on other than RTAprojects.

• • • •••

1 - 2 Chapter 1 RTA Project EstimatingIssued December 2001 Edition 1, Revision 0

1.2 Glossary of Terms

Accountability The final responsibility for completion of tasks and achievement of results within delegated authority and to established performance standards.

Actual Cost The final out-turn dollar expenditure on a project.

Anticipated Final Cost The sum of expenditure to date and the forecast expenditure, in outturn dollars, to complete the project.

Concept Estimate An estimate in current dollars prepared during the concept development phase and finalised following the determination of the Environmental Impact Assessment and concept approval.

Contingency Non-variation provision which covers circumstances that could not be forseen at the time of preparation of the estimate.

Current Dollars The value of work expressed in dollars of the day by inflating actual past expenditures and deflating projected future expenditures according to the approved inflationary factors.

Definitive Estimate An estimate which is reported as a single result.

Detailed Estimate The total estimate of all aspects of a project prepared prior to commencement of construction and based on final designs, detailed quantities and other identified costs, including allowances for contingencies and variations.

Direct Costs The actual costs of construction of the physical project work, exclusive of all margins, overheads and the like. Direct costs are composed of plant, materials and labour up to leading hand level.

Estimate A calculated prediction of the amount of money required to undertake a specific amount of work, expressed in dollar values of the year in which it was prepared. It is prepared in a systematic manner appropriate to the size and complexity of the project, and to a level of accuracy commensurate with the available information and the intended use of the information developed. It may include some prior expenditure in a mix of year dollar values.

First Principles Estimating An accurate, high order estimating method, which applies detailed breakdowns of prices for plant, labour and materials to develop direct costs and a calculation of expected indirect costs.

Global Estimating A very approximate, low order estimating method based on “all in” or global rates, such as $/km of freeway.

Indirect Costs Costs not included in direct costs (such as supervision, site costs, insurances, design) but exclusive of contingency and profit.

Job A stand alone component of a project.

Margin An allowance which includes the construction contractor’s corporate overheads and profit.

RTA Project Estimating Introduction 1 - 3 Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

• • • •••

Outturn Dollars Dollars of the period in which the work was or will be performed.

Project A series of inter-related activities with defined start and end dates designed to achieve a unique and common objective.

Project Estimate The total estimated cost in current or outturn dollars of all aspects of a project.

Range Estimate An estimate which is reported as a range of values within which the estimate can be considered to lie.

Risk The possibility that an expected outcome is not achieved or is replaced by another, or that an event (forseen as being possible but unlikely) occurs.

Strategic Estimate An estimate in current dollars prepared for project feasibility studies of various options prior to the development of a concept.

Value The lowest cost to reliably accomplish a function in accordance with required levels of quality and performance.

Value Management A structured, analytical process which seeks to achieve value for money by providing all the necessary functions at the lowest total cost consistent with required levels of quality and performance.

Variation Additional approved work or work not required. Also, extras or deductions resulting from errors or omissions in the detailed drawings and/or specifications.

• • • •••



RTA Project Estimating Overview of RTA Requirements 2 - 1 Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

• • • •••

C H A P T E R 2CHAPTER 0OVERVIEW OF RTA REQUIREMENTS

2.1 Summary

RTA’s current estimating policy is focused on the preparation of“unlikely to be exceeded” estimates. This means that the Actual Cost ofa project has a 90% probability of not being greater than the estimateprepared at any project stage. An alternative way of expressing this, isthat estimates are to have a 90% confidence factor of not beingexceeded.

At the same time, estimates must not be excessively conservative.Estimates must make reasonable allowances for risks andcontingencies, and items which are likely to be included in the finalproject scope through processes such as environmental determinantsand community consultation.

Review of project estimates is mandatory.

This chapter:

• details general responsibilities, delegations and accountabilities within RTA;

• contains a list of relevant Australian Standards and RTA documents;

• details RTA’s project stages and the estimates associated with each stage; and

• details presentation requirements for estimates.

A standard summary structure, which is to be used for all developmentproject estimates, is contained in Appendix 2.1. For smallermaintenance, traffic or road safety projects a modified work breakdownstructure may be adopted. At a level below this, the Project Manager

• • • •••


will decide whether the estimate should be formulated geographicallyor functionally, on a project by project basis. Proprietary softwarenormally has the facility to present estimates in both of these ways,thereby simplifying the task of modifying estimates.

Within RTA usage, the word “estimate” without “out-turn” meansdollar values in the year of the estimate. A date must therefore beincluded in all estimates.

2.2 RTA Estimating PolicyThe definition of an estimate in Chapter 1 is a combination of thedefinition from RTA’s Project Management Guidelines and thatcontained in F.J.Slattery’s “Fundamentals of Estimating forEngineering Construction”.

The contribution from Slattery is the stated recognition of constraintson the estimating process at various project stages and in particular theneed to ensure that the targeted level of estimate accuracy iscompatible with the available information.

Although such a qualification ought to be self-evident, the estimatingfundamental reflected, namely that of matching estimating effort andparticularly expectation of outcome with available information, is notalways observed. This should be borne in mind by all estimators whenpreparing estimates for RTA.

The acceptable range for Strategic, Concept and Detailed Estimates,expressed as a percentage of Actual Cost, has previously been -30% to+30%, -20% to +20% and -10% to +10% respectively. These rangesreflect the fact that as a project is developed the scope and risks willbecome increasingly better defined. This is shown diagrammatically inFigure 2.1.


• • • •••

Figure 2.1 Traditional Approach to Estimating

However, the impact of this philosophy is that in the case of 50% ofestimates, the Actual Cost is higher than the estimate; and in the case of50% of estimates, the Actual Cost is lower than the estimate. Thisphilosophy is no longer appropriate for budgeting reasons.

Current RTA policy, in response to changes in Client requirements, isthat estimates are to be produced on an “unlikely to be exceeded” basis,and therefore there must be a high degree of confidence that the ActualCost will be less than or equal to the estimated cost. This policy isequivalent to a lower range of estimate variation from Actual Cost ofzero. This is shown diagrammatically in Figure 2.2.

Stra

tegi

c

Con

cept

Det

aile

d

+30%

+20%

+10%

-10%

-20%

-30%

Required estimate range

Actual Cost

• • • •••


Figure 2.2 Required RTA Approach

Estimating in such an environment requires a conservative but realisticview of the project scope together with the risks and contingenciesassociated with the project, particularly in the early project stageswhere less detailed project information is available. The estimator may,in producing a “not to be exceeded” estimate, be tempted to take aninappropriately conservative view in the face of uncertainties. Thechallenge for the estimator is to arrive at a realistic (that is, not overlyconservative) view of the project scope and risks and assignappropriate contingencies, in order to produce a meaningful estimatewithin the “not to be exceeded but not to be excessive” band ofacceptability.

All estimates must include a detailed consideration of RTA’s projectcosts, including project management. These costs must be estimatedessentially on a first principles basis, taking into account the expectedRTA personnel required for the project and appropriate charge outrates, inclusive of personnel direct costs and regional and corporateoverheads.

Stra

tegi

c

Con

cept

Det

aile

d

+30%

+20%

+10%

-10%

-20%

-30%

Required estimate range(Upper Limit - 90% probability of not being exceeded)

Actual Cost


• • • •••

Estimates are relevant only to a particular project scope, or range ofscopes, which must be clearly set out as part of the estimate.

Estimates must make reasonable allowances for risks andcontingencies. Estimates should also make provision for items that areconsidered likely to be ultimately required, having regard to suchinputs as environmental determinants and community input on the finalproject scope. Such items should be included as specific allowancesand not through an increase in contingency.

Peer review of project estimates is mandatory and should beundertaken by an experienced officer independent of the project team.For projects over $20M in value ($10M for Federally funded projects)the estimate is to be submitted, after peer review, to the RTA ProjectManagement Office (PMO) for review and concurrence.

2.3 Responsibilities and Approvals

This section contains general responsibilities and approvals related toestimating. More detailed descriptions, where appropriate, arecontained within the relevant sections of this manual.

RTA’s policy is to ensure that there are clear lines of responsibility andaccountability to ensure that the best possible outcome is achieved. Toassist in this process, this section assigns those responsibilities inregard to the preparation, review, concurrence, approval andacceptance of project estimates.

2.3.1 Estimate PreparationThe Project Manager is responsible for:

• establishing the Scope of Work in consultation with the Client’s Representative;

• • • •••


• preparation of strategic, concept and detailed estimates; • carrying out the tasks in the checklists for preparation of the

various stages of estimates;• preparation of estimates for comparison with tenders; and• providing evidence of peer review (by a Senior Project Manager

where applicable).

The Client Representative is responsible for:

• ensuring that the estimate is consistent with the scope of work and available funding.

2.3.2 Estimate Review and ConcurrenceTo support RTA’s commitment to achieve accurate project estimates,PMO has been assigned the role of review and concurrence of someproject estimates. Accordingly:

For all estimates of cost greater than $20 million, all Federally fundedproject estimates of cost greater than $10 million, and for all high riskcomplex estimates of cost, the Estimator, PMO is responsible for:

• checking that all necessary documentation has been completed and submitted by the Project Manger;

• reviewing pareto item quantities and rates, eg earthworks, pavement, structures;

• identifying potential errors in the estimate;• reviewing project constructability;• assessing construction methodologies;• verifying that known risks have been identified and appropriate

allowances have been made in the estimate;• verifying that key assumptions have been listed and appropriate

allowances have been made in the estimate;• verifying that previous quantities, rates, lump sums and

contingencies have been reviewed as additional information becomes available; and

• preparation of a report recommending concurrence to the estimate of cost.


• • • •••

The General Manager, PMO is responsible for:

• ensuring that all necessary documentation is in order;• ensuring that the estimate is reasonable for the scope of work; and• signing off concurrence.

2.3.3 ApprovalsFor estimates of cost less than $5 million, the Section Manager isresponsible for approval.

For estimates of cost greater than $5 million and less than $50 million,the Branch Manager or the Regional Manager is responsible forapproval.

For estimates of cost greater than $50 million, the Director, ClientServices is responsible for approval.

The approving officer is also responsible for recommending andsupporting the Project budget.

2.3.4 Estimate AcceptanceThe Client Representative is responsible for:

• recommending the approval of the project budget based on a proposed funding profile.

The Client is responsible for acceptance of the estimate and approvalof the project budget.

• • • •••


2.4 Relevant Documents

2.4.1 Australian Standards

AS/NZS 4183 Value Management

AS/NZS 4360 Risk Management

2.4.2 RTA Documents

RTA Project Management Guidelines “Estimating, Scope and CostControl for development Projects” (February 2000)

RTA “Planning and Design Guide” (July 1990)

RTA “Economic Analysis Manual” (June 1999)

RTA “Risk Management Manual” (June 1999)

RTA “Delegations Manual” (October 1998)

RTA “RNI Development Program Guidelines” (February 1999)

RTA “Finance Manual” (June 1999)

RTA “Project Management Services Integrated Management System”PM21

NSW Government “Capital Project Procurement Guidelines” (October1993, currently under review)

NSW Government “Total Asset Management Guidelines – EconomicAppraisal, Life-Cycle Costing, Value Management, Risk Management,Post-Implementation Review” (December 1999)

http://home.rta.nsw.gov.au/dts/cserv/os/original/rni/esccv2.pdf

http://home.rta.nsw.gov.au/s97.vts?Action=FilterSearch&SearchPage=%2Fdts%2Fcserv%2Fos%2Firm%2Ftopic%2Fstructured.htm&ResultTemplate=result.hts&Filter=filter.hts&collection=CRD2&ITEM1=&OPERATOR1=AND&ITEM2=&OPERATOR2=&ITEM3=&TITLE=&DocSource=ECONOMIC+ANALYSIS+MANUAL&REFERENCENO=&DocType=ANY&SORTFIELD=Score&SORTORDER=desc&EXECUTE=Search

http://home.rta.nsw.gov.au/intranet/rtalibrary/reference/ref.htm

http://home.rta.nsw.gov.au/s97.vts?Action=FilterSearch&SearchPage=%2Fdts%2Fcserv%2Fos%2Firm%2Ftopic%2Fstructured.htm&ResultTemplate=result.hts&Filter=filter.hts&collection=CRD2&ITEM1=&OPERATOR1=AND&ITEM2=&OPERATOR2=&ITEM3=&TITLE=&DocSource=RISK+MANAGEMENT+MANUAL&REFERENCENO=&DocType=ANY&SORTFIELD=Score&SORTORDER=desc&EXECUTE=Search

http://home.rta.nsw.gov.au/s97.vts?Action=FilterSearch&SearchPage=%2Fdts%2Fcserv%2Fos%2Firm%2Ftopic%2Fstructured.htm&ResultTemplate=result.hts&Filter=filter.hts&collection=CRD2&ITEM1=&OPERATOR1=AND&ITEM2=&OPERATOR2=&ITEM3=&TITLE=&DocSource=DELEGATIONS+MANUAL&REFERENCENO=&DocType=ANY&SORTFIELD=Score&SORTORDER=desc&EXECUTE=Search

http://home.rta.nsw.gov.au/dts/cs/pmo/pmodocs/pmsprm01.pdf

http://home.rta.nsw.gov.au/s97.vts?Action=FilterSearch&SearchPage=%2Fdts%2Fcserv%2Fos%2Firm%2Ftopic%2Fstructured.htm&ResultTemplate=result.hts&Filter=filter.hts&collection=CRD2&ITEM1=&OPERATOR1=AND&ITEM2=&OPERATOR2=&ITEM3=&TITLE=&DocSource=FINANCE+MANUAL&REFERENCENO=&DocType=ANY&SORTFIELD=Score&SORTORDER=desc&EXECUTE=Search

http://www.dpws.nsw.gov.au/Government+Policy/Procurement/Procurement.htm

http://www.gamc.nsw.gov.au/tam/


• • • •••

2.5 Project StagesThe stages in an RTA project lifecycle at which an estimate is requiredare listed below. These stages are typical for medium to largedevelopment projects. It is expected that there would be lesser stagesfor smaller development, maintenance, traffic and road safety projects.

Completely new estimates, rather than review and modification ofprevious estimates, are to be prepared at least at Strategic, InitialConcept and Detailed stages to ensure that any changes andmodifications to previous estimates are fully incorporated and thatappropriate rigour is applied to the estimating process.

2.6 Presentation of EstimatesA standard Summary structure for development project estimates isshown in Appendix 2.1. (This is identical to the structure contained inTable 3.1 of the Project Management Guidelines – Estimating, Scopeand Cost Control for Development Projects.) This Summary sheet is tobe used for all development project estimates. An electronic version of

Estimate Stage When Prepared

Strategic As part of a route or area strategy and reported in the Route or Area Strategy Report.

Revised Strategic On completion of desktop study work at commencement of the Option Investigation Phase and reported in the Project Development Proposal.

Preliminary At the end of the “Option Investigation Phase” and included in the Preferred Option Report.

Initial Concept After the development of an engineering concept on the preferred option. It is reported in the Initial Concept Design Report.

Concept Prior to finalisation of the EIS or REF and reported in the Concept Design Report.

Revised Concept During finalisation of the Representations Report and submitted together with this report.

Final Concept After receipt of the Conditions of Approval and any design amendments. The estimate is reported in the Project Implementation Proposal.

Detailed On completion of the detailed design and reported separately.



• • • •••


this summary sheet can be accessed through PM21 (ProjectManagement System) on the PMO web site.

In preparation of the Summary, consideration must be given to theaccuracy of the presented estimated cost. The Project Manager shouldselect an appropriate level of rounding commensurate with the stage ofthe project and the accuracy of the estimate. For example, strategicestimates within the range $0 to $50 million could be rounded to thenearest $1 million to $2 million, and strategic estimates over $50million rounded to the nearest $5 million to $10 million. Roundingshould only be done once at the end of the estimate and notprogressively within the estimate.

At the level below that of the Summary, the estimator will develop amore detailed summary, the make-up and appearance of which willdepend on the type of estimate and the estimating methodologyadopted. Further guidance on appropriate styles is contained inChapters 5, 6 and 7 of this manual.

On major linear type projects, such as roads and tunnels, the estimatorwill be faced with the choice of presentation of the estimate eithergeographically or functionally. As an example, a road project may bepresented either as costs for specific sections between selectedchainages or as total costs for major elements such as earthworks,pavements and the like.

Each type of presentation has advantages. A geographic presentation isrequired for comparison of subroutes within an overall route. Such apresentation has disadvantages, however, in value engineeringexercises where a global change in an item over the whole project, suchas pavement type, requires reworking in each geographic section ratherthan in one item for the whole project, as would be the case in thefunctional type presentation.

The Project Manager will decide which style is likely to provide themost flexibility for the particular project.

http://webd.rta.nsw.gov.au/pmo.htm



• • • •••

A major advantage of the majority of proprietary estimating software isthe facility to present estimates in two or more alternative ways. Whileobligatory use of proprietary software is not yet RTA policy, thoseundertaking repetitive estimates of major projects may find the benefitsof such software worthwhile. Further details of proprietary software arecontained in Chapter 10.

Within RTA usage, the word “estimate” without “out-turn” meansdollar values in the year of the estimate. All estimates must thereforeinclude a date, however a month and year is sufficient.

• • • •••



• • • •••

A P P E N D I X 2 . 1CHAPTER 0STANDARD SUMMARY STRUCTURE FOR

DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ESTIMATES

• • • •••


Standard Summary Structure for Development Project EstimatesTable 3.1

Project: Prepared by:

Project No: Date: Estimate Stage:

Item Estimate Contingency Estimate % of Total Comments/Assumptions

(excluding% Amount (including contingency)

Estimate

contingency)

1. Project Development

1 (a) Route/Concept/EIS or REF $ % $ $1 (b) Project Management Services $ % $ $1 (c) Client Representation $ % $ $

Sub total $ % $ $ %

2. Investigation and Design

2 (a) Investigation and Design $ % $ $2 (b) Project Management Services $ % $ $2 (c) Client Representation $ % $ $

Sub total $ % $ $ %

3. Property Acquisitions

3 (a) Acquire Property $ % $ $3 (b) Professional Services for Property $ % $ $3 (c) Project Management Services $ % $ $3 (d) Client Representation $ % $ $

Sub total $ % $ $ %

4. Public Utility Adjustments

4 (a) Adjust Utilities $ % $ $4 (b) Project Management Services $ % $ $4 (c) Client Representation $ % $ $

Sub total $ % $ $ %

5. Construction

5 (a) - 5 (c) Infrastructure $ % $ $5 (d) Project Management Services $ % $ $5 (e) Client Representation $ % $ $

Sub total $ % $ $ %

6. Handover

6 (a) Refurbish old route $ % $ $6 (b) Project data and performance $ % $ $6 (c) Project Management Services $ % $ $6 (d) Client Representation $ % $ $

Sub total $ % $ $ %

TOTAL $ % $ $ %

Total Amount % of Total Estimate

Project Management ______________ _____________

Client Representation ______________ _____________

Reality checks:

1. Project Cost / km ___________________

2. Project Cost / lane-km ___________________

3. Earthworks Cost / m3 ___________________

4. Pavement Cost / m2 ___________________

5. Structure Cost / m2 deck area ___________________

Document No: RTA-CSD-PMS-PR-P-95-A1 Issue 1.1 Page 1of 1

• • • •••


RTA Project Estimating Estimating Approach 3 - 1Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

• • • •••

C H A P T E R 3CHAPTER 0ESTIMATING APPROACH

3.1 SummaryRTA’s estimating approach is to require estimates be prepared at leastat three stages of development of a project:

• Strategic;• Concept; and• Detailed.

This chapter:

• discusses various methods of preparation of estimates (global, unit rates, first principles);

• requires that the scope of the project be properly and appropriately specified;

• requires that certain items (including constructability and program) be considered in the preparation of an estimate;

• considers special issues (including asset management, occupational health and safety, environment and traffic) to be considered in the preparation of a project estimate;

• discusses consideration of risk and contingency in estimates;• considers the use of value management techniques;• considers the use of historical cost data; and• requires the implementation of Quality Assurance practices in the

preparation and checking of estimates.

3.2 Types of EstimatesThe types of estimates undertaken by RTA for development projectsare listed in Chapter 2. The main types, and the purposes for whichthese estimates are used, are as follows.

• • • •••


Strategic • providing budgets for program management purposes;• comparing various alternatives within a project;

Concept • determining the viability of projects by establishing cost / benefit

values;• monitoring and comparing costs in project value engineering;

Detailed • establishing values for contract tender assessment; and• establishing project cash flow and payment requirements.

The characteristics of the above estimate types are contained in Table3.1.

Table 3.1 RTA Characteristics of Estimates

It is informative to compare RTA’s estimate types with those whichmay be regarded as typical of the estimating industry.

Estimate types proposed by Slattery and by Antill are contained inTables 3.2 and 3.3 respectively.

Estimate Type Applicability

Strategic Project feasibility studies of various options prior to the development of a concept.

Concept Prepared during the concept stage and finalised following the determination of the Environmental Impact Assessment and concept approval.

Detailed Prepared prior to commencement of construction and based on final designs, detailed quantities and other identified costs, including allowances for contingencies and variations.


• • • •••

Table 3.2 Slattery’s Classification of Estimates

Table 3.3 Antill’s Classification of Estimates

Slattery’s and Antill’s estimate characteristics are consideredrepresentative of normal industry practice; it is therefore seen (bycomparison of these tables) that the RTA’s “90% probability of ActualCost not exceeding estimated cost” requirement is more rigorous thantypical in the estimating industry.

Estimate Type Applicability Order of Accuracy

Order of Magnitude

When the project is first mooted, to establish its broad viability or a first budget for fiscal planning

+/-30%

Preliminary When some information on the project has been developed, to determine more accurately the magnitude of the financial commitment or to evaluate alternatives

+/-20%

Definitive Prepared during the detailed design phase to ensure that the cost of the structure or facility developing from the design process is within budget, or the probable extent of the overrun

+/-10%

Detailed Prepared by a Contractor as part of the process of preparing a tender for the construction of a project

+/-5%

Estimate Type Applicability Required Information Order of Accuracy

Approximate or rough

Pre-design, to assess the magnitude of a project prior to its design, produced with a minimum of preparation (“an intelligent guess”)

Basic project information, a cost rate for some readily measurable quantity, such as rate per square metre of bridge deck area

+/-20% to 25%

Preliminary Assessing the relative costs of alternative designs

General arrangement and major quantities

More details and a reasonable quantity schedules

+/-15% to 20%

+/-10% to 15%

Detailed: either

basic costs

unit rates

The final assessment of the cost of a project.

Detailed bill of quantities prepared from the final working drawings and specifications

+/-5% to 10%

+/-8% to 12%

• • • •••


It may further be seen that the upper level accuracies required ofRTA’s strategic, concept and detailed estimates are met or exceeded byaccuracies achieved by the approximate (or order of magnitude),preliminary and detailed (or definitive) estimate. It may be concludedthat similar methods should be used to prepare each of thesecorresponding estimate types.

RTA’s recent experience has found this to be generally true ofpreliminary / concept estimates and detailed (or definitive) estimates.However, experience has been that strategic estimates based on the“approximate” or “order of magnitude” methodology do not deliverRTA’s requirements of a strategic estimate with sufficient certainty.This has been found to be the case particularly for road projectestimates based simply on $ per km.

3.3 Methods of EstimatingAll estimates utilise the basic concept of division of a project intosufficiently small elements so as to allow a single rate or unit cost to beapplied to each element, extending the quantities and rates to determinea cost for each element, summing the resulting elemental costs andfinally applying additional costs to give a complete estimate.

The basic difference in the estimate types is the degree to which aproject is divided into elements and the method used to apply rates andthe additional costs. The more rigorous the process used, the greaterwill be the certainty of estimate outcome or (in other words) the“accuracy” of the estimate.

The method chosen for the preparation of an estimate depends on boththe purpose for which the estimate is required (and therefore therequired accuracy of the estimate) and the level of detail of availabledata. There is little point, for example, in commitment of the resourcesrequired to prepare a detailed first principles estimate on the basis ofstrategic information.


• • • •••

Methods commonly used in preparation of estimates are outlinedbelow:

3.3.1 Global EstimatesThe term Global Estimating or Order of Magnitude Estimating is usedto describe a coarse or low order method of estimating involving theuse of “all in” or global composite rates. The project could beconsidered as consisting of one estimating element only and theestimate prepared on this basis.

Examples are road cost per km and bridge costs per square metre ofdeck area.

This method has historically been used for strategic estimates, and maystill be satisfactory for some projects.

However, such an approach has been found not to reliably deliver therequired certainty of outcome for road projects, and must be used withcaution.

If a Global Estimate is to be prepared (due to shortage of time or otherconstraints) it is essential that the composition of an historic global ratebe understood prior to adoption and application of that rate to a newproject. Often, global rates are based on actual completed costs and donot contain a contingency allowance, although occasionally anallowance for foreseeable risks may have been contained in the globalrate. In any event, the allowances, if any, for these items contained inan historic global rate must be reviewed and adjusted, if necessary, forthe new project’s particular circumstances.

3.3.2 Unit Rates EstimatesThe Unit Rate approach makes use of historical rates and calculatedquantities to derive elemental costs. The level of project detail availableat the time of estimate preparation, and the purpose for which theestimate is required, will determine the number of items into which theproject is divided.

• • • •••


Even when limited information is available, it is likely that a betterresult will be attained by adoption of a coarse unit rates approach ratherthan a global method.

With a sufficient level of information, judicious selection ofappropriate historical rates and provided that sufficient care is taken toensure that the complete scope of the project is incorporated in theestimate, the unit rate approach is capable of production of estimatessuitable for RTA’s requirements for detailed estimates, that is, within10% of Actual Cost.

However, care must be exercised to ensure that appropriate rates areselected and the makeup of those rates is understood.

3.3.3 First Principles EstimatesThe basis of first principles estimating, sometimes referred to as basiccosts estimating, is replacement of the historical cost data with ratescalculated specifically for the particular project.

To begin a First Principles estimate, a new project is divided into thefinest feasible elements. For example, concrete in a bridge deck istypically further subdivided into formwork, concrete supply,placement, finishing and curing.

The plant, materials and labour requirements for each of these basicsteps in construction of each element are determined, taking account ofsuch factors as material wastage, plant cycle times and labourinefficiencies.

Direct cost rates (exclusive of risk, contingency, indirect costs andmargin) are calculated to develop a direct cost rate for each element,which, when applied to the calculated elemental quantities, gives aforecast direct cost.

Indirect costs, or preliminaries, are calculated by consideration of timebased costs and “one-off “ costs (those which are independent of the


• • • •••

duration of the project). Time based costs include site staff and theirvehicles, site running costs, time related insurances and the like,whereas indirect costs include such items as mobilisation, siteestablishment, tender costs (for a contractor), lump sum insurances andsimilar items.

The direct costs and indirect costs are then added, an allowance for costescalation (if applicable) over the anticipated duration of the projectapplied, and margin and contingency added to give the total estimatedcost. If the purpose of the estimate is to complete a schedule of rates orprices for a tender, indirect costs, margins and the like would then bespread over the tender items.

First principles estimating is the method normally adopted byContractors for preparation of detailed estimates for contract tenders. Itis the most time consuming and hence costly to prepare, but has thepotential to deliver the greatest certainty of outcome. Usedinappropriately, however, first principles estimating can deliver resultsthat are outside even the required range of strategic estimates.

3.3.4 Hybrid Unit Rate / First Principles EstimateUnit rates used by RTA in estimates are traditionally obtained fromprevious tenders for similar work. These are commonly “selling rates”,which include indirect costs and all contractor’s contingencies, marginsand allowances. The sum of the elemental costs derived by thequantities and rates is the estimated cost.

Since each project has unique constraints and requirements, such anapproach contains inherent inaccuracies in that factors and allowancesdeveloped for a previous project (which may not be applicable orappropriate to the project being estimated) will be applied with the unitrate.

An alternative approach, which uses some features of the unit ratemethod and some of first principles estimating, can result in increasedestimate accuracy without requiring the resource investment requiredof a full first principles estimate.

• • • •••


Such a method relies on the availability of direct cost unit rates - that isrates which are equivalent to those derived from the first principlesapproach before the application of any other costs.

The process involved is to divide the project into the smallest feasiblegeographic or work breakdown structure elements, but without furthersubdivision into the basic components of plant, materials and labour.Application of direct cost rates (obtained by averaging tendered ratesfor similar projects in the recent past) to the elemental quantities willresult in the direct cost as in the first principles method. The remainderof the estimate is then developed similar to the first principles estimate,although usually on a coarser scale.

In some cases, development of rates from first principles may still berequired. An example could be a road project in undulating or hillyterrain with substantial cut to fill earthworks combined with a filldeficit, requiring substantial borrow and haulage. In such a case,consideration of likely mass hauls, haul distances and plant cycle timesmay be required to develop custom unit rates for the project. Historicaldata would then be used for the remaining items of the estimate

Such an estimate caters more accurately to the project conditions andconstraints than the standard unit rates method, although not as well asa first principles estimate, and can therefore be expected to have anaccuracy between those achieved by these methods.

3.4 Definition of Project Scope and Constraints3.4.1 Project ScopeThe starting point for any estimate is definition of the project scope.Scope definition requires an understanding of the project objectivesand the means by which those objectives will be delivered. In themajority of RTA projects, objectives will be delivered throughconstruction of physical infrastructure and works. However, there are


• • • •••

some projects (for example in the Information Technology andManagement areas) where delivery of a project will not involvephysical works. Although in such projects there may be no physical endproduct, understanding of the project objectives and documentation ofthe project scope is equally important if a reliable project estimate is tobe produced.

Scope definition is normally achieved through pictorial representationsand drawings, together with lists of works to be undertaken. Theamount of information available, and hence the degree of scopedefinition achievable, depends on the stage of the project.

Adequate definition of project scope is probably the most important(and often the most difficult) aspect of production of a satisfactoryestimate. Inadequate or incorrect scope definition is not only the mostcommon cause of inaccuracy in RTA estimates, but also the cause ofthe greatest degree of inaccuracy in estimates, particularly in the earlyproject stages when the minimum amount of information is available.

Estimators must resist the temptation to base estimates on poorlydefined scope, which then become merely a guess, and not necessarilyan informed one.

It is essential that, even at strategic stage, the project scope is knownand understood in sufficient detail as to allow the production of ameaningful estimate. Where information is limited, scope definitionwill require local knowledge of the project site and conditions andexperience in and comparison with similar projects.

The more common problems encountered in project scope definitionare as follows.

No project estimate (of any type) should be commenced without aproper scope definition.

• • • •••


Complete Omission (or Erroneous Inclusion) of ItemsExamples of items which may be omitted from or erroneously includedin a project’s scope are intersections or interchanges, culverts ordrainage facilities, stock underpasses, drainage in cuttings, noisebarriers, batter stabilisation work and subgrade improvement orstrengthening.

Such omissions should be avoided by checking with a schedulecontaining all possible items.

Where estimates are based on other than global methods, the estimatormust use his experience of similar projects to determine the likelihoodof inclusion of such features if insufficient documented detail isavailable. Such inclusions should be listed as assumptions and adjustedor removed when more details become known.

Incorrect Determination of the Quantity of an ItemThe accuracy of determination of quantities depends on the detail ofavailable information. However, even at the simplest level, in the oftentime constrained environment of estimate preparation gross errors canand have occurred. Examples are inclusion of only half the pavementquantity in dual carriageway roads or half the concrete quantity in twindeck bridges.

The estimator should minimise the risk of quantity error by logicallyand methodically undertaking quantity calculations, and by theadoption of available quality systems.

Inclusion of Inappropriate Items.Examples of inclusion of inappropriate items are the adoption of lowquality noise barriers in an urban environment and selection of aninappropriate pavement type or bridge type for a particular application.

Scope creepScope creep is the addition of elements or items to a project, after thescope has been originally defined and agreed. If the scope has been


• • • •••

initially set to satisfy the original project objectives, then scope creepwould result from the introduction of additional project objectives,such as community or authority requirements which were notpreviously included. This is not to be confused with inclusion of itemswhich ought to have been included in the original project scope, butwere omitted either through oversight or lack of appreciation of theproject.

3.4.2 Project ConstraintsOn a project, constraints may exist for a variety of reasons. Constraintsmay be physical, environmental, aesthetic or regulatory, and may eitherintroduce additional items into a project or may affect the unit rates ofexisting items. Examples of constraints that could potentially beomitted from the project scope are the need for air or water treatmentprior to discharge; the requirement for provision of access to propertieseither during construction or in the final project and limitations onworking hours and generated noise.

A constraint that commonly causes difficulties in estimates is that ofexisting services and utilities, particularly those located underground,and which may require adjustment, relocation or replacement. It isoften difficult to ascertain the likely extent of effects of underground(and, in some cases, above ground) services, particularly in the earlyproject stages. An appropriate amount has to be included in theestimate as a Contingency Allowance.

The Project Manager should use a checklist containing all possibleconstraints to avoid omissions.

• • • •••


3.5 Constructability and Program3.5.1 ConstructabilityThe RTA Project Management Guide defines constructability as “theoptimum use of construction knowledge and experience in planning,design, procurement and field operations to achieve overall projectobjectives”.

This broad definition may be narrowed when applied to estimating, theobjective of which is to forecast the project cost within the requiredaccuracy for the type of estimate being prepared. Constructability inrelation to estimating can be regarded as the extent to which planning,design, procurement and field operational features affect theconstruction cost of a project. An example is the need for sheet pilingaround excavation in poor ground. Depending on the time ofpreparation of the estimate within the life of the project, some of thesefactors may be known and others required to be assumed.

In its most extreme form, lack of appreciation of constructability issuesmay result in preparation of an estimate for a project which cannotphysically be built.

3.5.2 ProgramAn appreciation of the likely project construction program is necessaryin preparation of all but the most rudimentary of estimates.

Potential direct cost effects of the construction program may includereductions in productivity during wet seasons, potential resourcesshortages at certain times of the year such as Christmas periods and thecost of maintenance of temporary facilities, such as road diversions orhaul roads, during the construction period. The longer the constructionprogram, the greater will be the effect on project cost.

The indirect costs of a project will also be affected by the durationrequired for project delivery. A reduction in project duration is likely tobe achieved at the expense of increased resources, increased


• • • •••

mobilisation and establishment costs and increased time related costsper period, but with a reduction in the overall time related costs. Theconverse is true of an increased construction time. The optimum projecttime, in terms of minimisation of cost, is not necessarily obvious.

For estimates which are required in outturn dollars, an appreciation ofthe likely construction program is necessary to apply escalation tocurrent dollar costs in order to arrive at the outturn estimate.

3.6 Asset ManagementRTA’s Development Policy on Project Handover requires thatInfrastructure Maintenance Branch be consulted during the conceptdevelopment and detailed design phases of a project, to ensure that costeffective and appropriate asset management and maintenance functionscan occur over the life of the project, and that the cost of suchprovisions are included in the estimated project cost.

In relation to estimates, asset management may be regarded as the costof operation, if applicable, maintenance and rehabilitation of a project.Decisions taken during development of a project will influence notonly the capital cost but also the operation, maintenance andrehabilitation costs. Minimisation of capital cost is not necessarily, andis probably not, compatible with optimisation of whole of life costs.

Appreciation of whole of life project costs therefore requiresknowledge of all relevant operation and maintenance costs. Even whereoptimisation of whole of life costs is not a project objective, wherereduced capital costs may take precedence over minimum whole of lifecost, an appreciation of whole of life costs is mandatory in projectdevelopment.

3.7 Occupational Health, Safety & RehabilitationOccupational Health, Safety and Rehabilitation (OHS&R) issues mayaffect both direct and indirect cost.

• • • •••


The most obvious area of OHS&R effects on direct costs is therequirement to provide a safe work area adjacent to existing roads. Inaddition to the cost of provision of barriers and attendants, such arequirement may affect the traffic staging during construction of aproject, thereby also affecting the cost. In other areas, such astunnelling, evolution of workplace environment requirements needs tobe considered when reviewing older historical data for applicability ina new project estimate.

In addition to the above effects on direct costs, RTA’s project OHS&Rresponsibilities and obligations must be considered when evaluatingproject management and supervision requirements and costs.

3.8 Environmental IssuesMost RTA activities require environmental impact assessment. Whilepreparation of the assessment will involve a cost that should beincluded in the estimate, it is likely that of more significance to theestimator will be the cost of compliance with the findings of theassessment or associated conditions of approval of the project by theEnvironmental Authorities. Of particular importance are the changes toa project that may result from either the determination process itself orfrom community consultation, either during the determination processor ongoing through project delivery.

The environmental conditions of approval, and any resulting changesto the project, are usually not known until preparation of the finalconcept estimate. All preceding estimates must therefore be prepared inthe absence of such detailed information, relying on requirements forsimilar projects. It would be appropriate to include a contingencyallowance for complying with such conditions.

An environmental aspect which has become quite significant in termsof project cost in recent years is that of flora and fauna compensatoryhabitats, mitigation strategies and associated works, where RTA isrequired to provide alternative habitats for species of flora and faunawhen existing habitats are affected by projects.


• • • •••

The extent (and hence the cost) of compensatory habitats andmitigation strategies are dependent on the extent to which specieshabitats are affected by the project.

3.9 Traffic Issues

Depending on the type and location of the project, traffic issues whichneed to be considered during preparation of a project estimate mayinclude some or all of the following:

• modification or diversion of existing roads, to cater for existing traffic, on a single or multiple staged basis and maintaining an agreed level of service for users;

• provision of site access for construction vehicles; • definition of allowable urban construction truck routes; and• upgrading of existing facilities as part of the project works.

The cost of traffic management may be reflected in the unit rates forother items, or may be included as a separate allowance, depending onthe type of estimate and the amount of information available. It isimportant that the estimator understands the makeup of adopted unitrates and ensures that appropriate provision is made for the costs oftraffic management, if such costs are spread over rates and not shownas a separate estimate item.

The significance of traffic issues on estimated cost is project specific,and, therefore, historical unit rates from projects which requiredsignificant traffic measures may not be directly applicable to otherprojects without adjustment of this component of the rate.

3.10 Risk & ContingencyRisk is defined as the chance of something happening that will have animpact upon objectives. It is measured in terms of consequences andlikelihood (AS 4360).

http://home.rta.nsw.gov.au/intranet/rtalibrary/reference/ref.htm

• • • •••


Contingency is generally defined as an unforeseen event (or risk). Forestimating purposes, however, RTA refers to contingency as the sum ofmoney allocated for dealing with unforeseen events, including thosesuch as quantities more than anticipated

3.10.1 RiskThe RTA has well established methods for identifying and assessingrisks (Risk Management), which are beyond the scope of this manual.

For the purposes of estimating, risks can be classified as "KnownRisks" and "Unknown Risks"

(a) Known Risks: A known risk is that which has been identified inthe Risk Management exercise as an unplanned event that couldoccur in the project under consideration. The Risk Managementexercise would have made one of the following decisions:

(i) Adopt measures to eliminate the risk completely

- In this case, the cost of such measures should be included as a separate item in the estimate.

(ii) Adopt measures to reduce the impact of the risk

- In this case, the cost of such measures should be included as a separate item in the estimate and the cost of dealing with the reduced risk event, if it eventuates, should be included as a separate item or in the contingency allowance. If the cost is included in the contingency allowance, the estimate should contain a note clarifying this amount.

(iii) Do Nothing- - In this case, the cost of dealing with the risk event, if it eventuates, should be included either as a separate item or in the contingency allowance. If the cost is included in the contingency allowance, the estimate should contain a note clarifying this amount.


• • • •••

The main purposes of showing the estimated costs for dealing withrisks, separately, are:

(i) the items can easily be changed into Provisional Items fortendering purposes; and

(ii) actual costs of variations arising from the risk events can betraced back to the allowances made in the estimates.

Examples of known risks are:

(i) Sulphate Attack (High likelihood, severe consequence)

In this case, the Risk Management exercise may have led todeciding on adopting measures to eliminate the risk completely.

(ii) Community complaint on construction noise levels (Mediumlikelihood & consequence)

In this case, the Risk Management exercise may have led todeciding on adopting measures to reduce the impact such asconstructing a temporary earth mound.

(iii) Pile toe levels lower than expected (Medium likelihood &consequence)

In this case, the Risk Management exercise may have led todeciding on adopting the "Do Nothing" option.

(b)Unknown Risks

These are risks where existence and degree of impact on the projectare both uncertain. Examples of such risks are Force-Majure eventssuch as flooding, earthquake, cyclone, etc., political events such as

• • • •••


funding cutback, labour unrest, etc., and human errors such asdesign errors, accidents caused by human factors, etc.

The Risk Management exercise may not have determined theprobability or the severity of such risks. Even if these have beendetermined, their reliability would be in question. For example, theprobability of an earthquake occurring in Sydney could have beendecided as, say, 1 in 10,000 prior to the earthquake in Newcastle in1990. Immediately after that incident, it could have been decidedas, say, 1 in 10. Now, some ten years after the incident, it could bedecided as, say, 1 in 1,000. Similarly, the prediction of the severityof the incident would also be unreliable. The predictions would alsodepend on the bias of the decision makers - A person who hasexperienced a similar incident would tend to predict a higherprobability than that predicted by others and a severity similar to theone he/she has experienced. As such, it would be difficult to arriveat reasonable contingency allowances.

It should, however, be born in mind that the tendency to be risk-aversive would lead to unrealistically high estimates caused byadding contingency allowances for all or most of the identifiedunknown risks. A common sense approach and consideration ofhow the previously completed projects have suffered fromunknown risks would give rise to reasonable contingency amounts.

It should also be noted that the probability of the project beingaffected by all of the identified "unknown risks" would be next tonothing. If a large number of risks are identified, especially for alarge complex project, a realistic contingency figure could bearrived at by carrying out a Monte Carlo simulation. This process,however, would require feeding in minimum, maximum and mostprobable costs of dealing with each risk and the type of distributionbetween minimum & maximum values for each risk. The outcomeis a range within which the project estimate will lie. The process is,therefore, sometimes known as “range estimating”, and is


• • • •••

undertaken with software developed for the purpose. Essetnially, adefinitive estimate is prepared, to which risk probabilities areapplied and a range estimate developed.

Software used for quantification of risks and the development ofrange estimates includes:

• Crystal Ball, which uses Microsoft Excal spreadsheets for input;• @Risk, which also uses Microsoft Excel spreadsheets for input;

and• Analytica.

Further details of these software packages and the way in whichthese are used are contained in Chapter 10.

3.10.2 ContingencyThe contingency allowance for the different items should be reviewedat each stage of the estimate and adjusted, if necessary, depending onthe predicted probability and severity of the risk events at those stages.Further details and recommended levels of contingency for the variousproject stages are contained in Sections 5, 6 and 7.

It must be noted that the contingency allowance is not for changes tothe project scope, but only for unforeseen events which occur withinthe existing project scope. In the event that the project scope ischanged, a new estimate must be prepared, with a new definition ofproject scope and a level of contingency applicable to the revisedscope.

3.11 Value EngineeringThe process of value engineering, or value management, is described inthe following documents;

AS/NZS 4183 “Value Management”;

NSW Government “Capital Works Investment Value ManagementManual”; and

http://www.gamc.nsw.gov.au/tam/default.asp?PageID=84

• • • •••


Value Management Guide prepared for RTA by the product EvaluationUnit, NSW Public Works Department.

Value management is defined in AS/NZS 4183 as “a structured,analytical process which seeks to achieve value for money by providingall the necessary functions at the lowest total cost consistent withrequired levels of quality and performance.”

It is clear from the above definition that, at the heart of valuemanagement is the provision of reliable estimates on which valuemanagement decisions can be based. It is equally important to adjustthe estimate(s) to reflect the decisions taken during the ValueManagement process.

While it is not the function of the estimator to make decisionsregarding the relative merits of different project options, a properlyconsidered and prepared estimate should highlight any areas of theproject which, in comparison with other similar projects, do not appearto provide a value for money solution.

Further, the concept of “designing to a cost” should be borne in mindduring preparation of detailed designs.

3.12 Use of Historical Cost DataRTA has over time, through receipt of tenders and preparation ofRTA’s own estimates for projects, amassed a wealth of data on rates,prices and costs. Often, such data is useful in the production of newestimates. Inappropriate use of such data can, however, have seriousconsequences in the accuracy and reliability of the estimate.

There are four major factors which must be considered in decidingwhether an historical rate or price is applicable to a new estimate.


• • • •••

Direct Costs Direct costs are those involved in actually constructing a work item.These costs normally include materials, plant and labour up to the levelof leading hand/ganger.

It is not always apparent from the title of a rate precisely what directwork items are included. For example, “concrete” may include onlysupply and delivery of concrete, or also placing and finishing, or it maybe a composite rate including formwork construction and stripping,reinforcement, supply, placing, finishing and curing of concrete. Anallowance for wastage may or may not be included. Similarly,“excavation” may include excavation only, or haulage, stockpiling andspoil disposal, or all of these, environmental protection and anallowance for harder material excavation.

In addition to the above, historical cost data may contain risk andcontingency allowances specific to a particular project, or alternativelymay make no allowance for these.

Indirect Costs Indirect Costs include such items as site overheads and allowances fornon-work related items.

Typically, submitted tenders do not list such items as preliminaries,overheads and profit separately. Therefore, submitted tender ratesnormally include indirect costs. Such rates are sometimes referred to as‘sell(ing) prices or rates’.

In preparation of estimates, particularly more detailed estimates such asthose prepared from first principles or the hybrid approach describedearlier, the rates adopted often exclude indirect costs. The estimate iscompiled on the basis of direct cost rates, with indirect costs added as aseparate item in the estimate total.

Prior to the adoption of historical cost data, it is necessary tounderstand the makeup of the data, and in particular whether the dataincludes or excludes indirect costs.

• • • •••


Overheads and profitBoth direct and indirect costs will be subject to the addition of amountsfor the tenderer’s corporate overheads and profit (margin). However, itis not always possible to identify the amount of such allowances.

In using historical data, the estimator must be aware of the marketconditions prevailing at the time of the tender (competitive marketconditions lead to a reduction in allowances for overheads and profit)and the possibility that the allowances for overheads and profit havenot been equally spread over all the rates (Contractors sometimes adopta practice known as ‘front end loading’ for ensuring good cash flow atthe beginning of a project).

Age of the DataCosts for the same item of work vary with the passage of time (usuallyincreasing), and the older the data the less reliable it will be. Anappropriate allowance for inflation must be made whenever historicaldata is used.

3.12.1 Application of Historical DataWhile historical cost data is a valuable asset, careless or inappropriateadoption of such data can, and has, led to significant errors inestimates.

Prior to the use of such data it is essential to be confident that themakeup of the data is known and that the data is applicable to theestimate under preparation.

3.13 Quality Assurance in EstimatingEstimating is a task in which errors can easily occur, and is also one forwhich the delivered product does not necessarily provide evidence of


• • • •••

the rigour of the processes adopted. The estimating process is one thatwill benefit from the adoption of Quality Assurance principles.

The following procedures are applicable to the preparation of RTAestimates:

Procedure for Preparation, Concurrence, Approval and Acceptance ofan Estimate of Cost (RTA-CSD-PMS-PR-P-91);

Procedure for Preparation of a Strategic Cost Estimate (RTA-CSD-PMS-PR-P-92);

Procedure for Preparation of a Concept Cost Estimate (RTA-CSD-PMS-PR-P-93); and

Procedure for Preparation of a Detailed Cost Estimate (RTA-CSD-PMS-PR-P-94).

Chapters 5, 6 and 7 of this manual provide further descriptions andguidance on the processes to be adopted for strategic, concept anddetailed estimates respectively.

In addition to the above procedures, flowcharts, checklists andproformas are included in this manual in the appropriate sections. Useis to be made of these as far as possible during preparation of anestimate, or, if necessary, these should be used as a basis for thedevelopment of project specific versions.

Reality checks and peer review are also be considered to form part ofthe quality assurance process.

The Project Management System (PM21) Manual is applicable toestimate preparation for all infrastructure development projectsmanaged by Project Management Services Group within RTA’sClient Service Directorate.


http://home.rta.nsw.gov.au/dts/cs/pmo/pmodocs/pmsprp91.pdf







• • • •••


Reality Checks and Peer ReviewReality checks must be carried out for every estimate by the estimatorprior to presentation of the estimate for peer review.

Reality checks, also called gross or sanity checks, are intended toensure that the estimate is within expected and reasonable limits. Suchchecks are based on comparisons of estimated costs with historicaldata, and are generally undertaken on a global basis. The StandardSummary Structure for Development Project Estimates requires realitychecks based on project cost per km of road and per lane-km of road,earthworks costs /m3, pavement costs /m2 and structure cost /m2 ofdeck area.

Even when reality checks are not a formal requirement, it is goodestimating practice to undertake a reality check on every estimate, toboth verify the appropriateness of the estimate and also to contribute tothe available database of estimating knowledge within RTA.

RTA policy is that peer review be carried out wherever possible by aperson of the next or same level of seniority to the person responsiblefor preparation of the estimate. While peer review would practicallyinvolve a lesser level of detail than that involved in preparation of theestimate, it is essential that the review focuses on the major items insufficient detail that the validity of the estimate is verified.

3.14 Guidelines for Preparing Estimates

It has been noted that there is lack of consistency in (a) the grouping ofmajor infrastructure items (b) the calculation of reality check rates,when preparing estimates for various projects. These guidelines clarifythe grouping and the figures to be used for reality check calculations.


• • • •••

3.14.1 EarthworksThe following items should be included under this sub-heading:

• Clearing & Grubbing• Remove & Stockpile Topsoil• General Earthworks (Cut/Fill)• Earthworks (Cut to Waste)• Imported (Borrow) Material• Unsuitable Material (to Spoil)• Selected Material• Earthworks for Batter Protection

The Reality Check calculation for Earthworks should be carried out byusing the dollar amounts and quantities for General Earthworks(Cut/Fill), Earthworks (Cut to Spoil) and Imported (Borrow) Materialonly.

3.14.2 StructuresThe following items should be included under this sub-heading:

• Bridges• Structural Retaining Walls, e.g. Cantilever type walls• Structural Culverts (cast in-situ)

The reality check calculation for Structures should be carried out byusing the dollar amounts for Bridges and the deck area for Bridgesonly. For calculating the deck area of a bridge, the length should bemeasured between the inside face of abutment curtain walls and thebreadth should be measured between the inside face of the outerparapets. Thus any footpath, if provided, would also be included in thedeck area.

Note:

1. Approach slabs, Retaining Walls and Structural Culverts are notto be included in Reality Check calculations.

2. Precast Box Culverts and Pipe Culverts are to be included under"Drainage"

• • • •••


3.14.3 Drainage• The following items should be included under this sub-heading:• Sub-soil Drains• Filter Layers• Drainage Blankets• Wick Drains• Longitudinal and Transverse Drainage Culverts

3.14.4 PavementThe reality check calculation for Pavement should be carried out byusing the dollar amounts and surface area of the main carriageway(s)pavement. Ramps and structures are excluded in the calculations.

Note:

1. Select Material should be included under "Earthworks"

2. Reinforced Soil Retaining Wall should be included as aseparate item under "Roadworks".

3.14.5 Total Project CostThe Reality Check calculation for Cost/ km should include the totalproject costs and length of the project on the main carriageway(s).

The Reality Check calculation for Cost/lane km should include thetotal project cost and length of acceleration & deceleration lanes, left &right turn bays on the main carriageway(s) and include ramps atintersections.

Note:

1. The total cost used in the Reality Check calculation shouldinclude cost of structures.

RTA Project Estimating Estimate Components 4 - 1 Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

• • • •••

C H A P T E R 4CHAPTER 0ESTIMATE COMPONENTS

4.1 Summary

This chapter considers the common components of all RTA estimates,including:

• Project Development costs;• Detailed Investigation and Design costs;• Property Acquisition costs;• Infrastructure Construction costs;• Utilities costs; and• Handover costs.

The components are defined and examples given, in order that a highdegree of consistency will be maintained through all RTA estimates.

4.2 Project Development CostsThese costs include activities in the Option Investigation, ConceptDesign and Design Development and Approval phases of the project.

Project development costs may include:

• Route selection;• Advice from other government agencies;• Preparation of EIS;• Acid or contaminated soils investigations and review;• Technical input from the project team;• Concept review by RTA Operations;• Preparation of Representations Report;• Preparation of project estimate;

• • • •••


• RTA Project Management; and• RTA Client Representation.

4.3 Detailed Investigation and Design CostsThese costs include all activities in the Detailed Design andImplementation phase between the end of the Design Development andApproval phase and commencement of tendering (with the exceptionof property acquisitions and public utilities).

Detailed design and investigation costs may include:

• Geotechnical investigations;• Hydraulic and hydrological studies;• Fauna and flora impact studies;• Advice from other government agencies;• Utilities locations and searches;• Detailed project design and design review;• Technical input from the project team;• Preparation of project environmental plans;• Preparation of contract documents;• Safety audits; • Detailed estimate preparation;• RTA Project Management; and• RTA Client Representation.

4.4 Property Acquisition CostsEstimated property acquisition costs must be obtained from RTA’sProperty Section, for both metropolitan and rural property acquisitions.

Cost estimates supplied are generally the actual estimated landacquisition costs at the time the estimate is prepared by RTA’sProperty Section, with no allowance for contingency or for possiblefuture land cost variations. An appropriate contingency must be


• • • •••

applied, having regard to the expected timing of acquisition of theproperty and the complexity of the acquisitions. Generally acquisitioncomplexity, and hence the appropriate level of contingency, is higher inurban and particularly metropolitan areas (where land values are morevolatile and property adjustments are numerous) than in rural areas.

The value of all land required for the project, either as the acquisitioncost for newly acquired land, or the potential sale value for previouslyacquired land, must be included as a project cost. In the case of landwhich is required only for the period of construction, and which isacquired and subsequently disposed of rather then leased for theduration of project construction, a residual land value should becredited against the project cost. In some cases this may be the same asthe acquisition cost of that land, but often will be less than theacquisition value due to the proximity of the project works and possibleland rezoning.

Property acquisition costs may include:

• Property valuations;• Property surveys;• Property acquisitions;• Property adjustments;• RTA Project Management; and• RTA Client Representation.

Property acquisitions may include:

• The actual area acquired or utilised permanently for the project, including sub-surface easements if applicable;

• Compensation paid to land owners in respect of effects of the project on the owners’ land;

• Any land which may be permanently or temporarily required for compensatory habitats;

• Contractors’ work and site areas (if provided by RTA) including provision for site offices, temporary environmental works, traffic diversions and the like;

• • • •••


• RTA’s site office and facilities areas, if separate from the Contractor’s area;

• Land required for any RTA works to be undertaken as part of the project; and

• The residual value of land temporarily acquired, or made available by demolition of existing infrastructure replaced by the project works.

4.5 Infrastructure ConstructionInfrastructure construction includes the production or construction ofbase infrastructure, environmental works, general activities andproperty adjustment.

Infrastructure costs may include;

• Construction cost of infrastructure;• Technical advice from RTA ( eg Bridge Branch and Pavement

Branch);• Construction audits, site management and surveillance;• RTA Project Management; and• RTA Client Representation

4.6 Utilities CostsUtilities costs include all adjustments, replacements, relocations andthe like which are required as a consequence of the project, whetherundertaken by the responsible authority, a contractor engaged by thatauthority, or undertaken by RTA either as part of the main contractor’sworks or by separate contract. In some cases, utilities adjustments maybe undertaken partly by the project main contractor and partly byothers, outside the main contract scope of works but still within theoverall project scope. In such circumstances, care must be taken toensure that the correct scopes of utilities adjustments are contained inthe main contract scope and in the scope of other works, and that thescope description makes clear the division of utilities adjustments.


• • • •••

In the Sydney metropolitan area, some services, in particular oldsewers and water supply tunnels, are heritage classified. Project workswhich could affect these services, such as tunnelling, can requireextensive local additional work for protection of such services, the costof which may be significant. Also in the Sydney metropolitan area aremajor electrical services owned by railways authorities, and which areunlikely to be detected in an enquiry to the electrical supply authorities.

It is often difficult to ascertain the potential costs to RTA due to effectsof a project on existing utilities. For example, a utility authority maynot agree to meet the cost of relocation of a utility which was notsupposed to be in the vicinity. An appropriate contingency, which islikely to be among the highest adopted for the project, particularly inthe early stages of a project and in metropolitan areas, must be applied.

Utilities costs may include:

• Telstra, Optus and other communications carriers adjustments;• Electrical services adjustments;• Water and sewerage adjustments, including possible protection of

heritage services;• Gas mains adjustments;• RTA Project Management; and• RTA Client Representation.

4.7 Handover CostsHandover costs are those incurred by RTA when delivery of a newasset causes the management of either an old asset, previously theresponsibility of RTA, or part of the new asset to be transferred to abody other than RTA (eg Local Council).

Handover costs occur, for example, when a new section of roadreplaces an existing section, with the existing section becoming part ofthe local road network under the management of the local council. Insuch circumstances, RTA may be required to refurbish or resurface theexisting road, install signage prior to its acceptance by the council or to

• • • •••


contribute to the net present value of the future maintenance of theexisting road.

In some cases handover costs may occur when an existing structure isretained for heritage or other reasons and RTA is required to contributeto the ongoing maintenance costs. Examples of such costs are theretention of the old Glebe Island Bridge on completion of the AnzacBridge and the retention of the Hawthorne Canal bridge on completionat the City West Link.

A further example of handover costs occurs when roadside facilitiesare provided on a new section of road, such as rest areas and viewingpoints, the maintenance of which is the responsibility of the localcouncil. In such cases, handover costs consist of the cost of preparationof maintenance manuals, setting out RTA’s requirements, for the areas.

Handover costs may include:

• Refurbishment of old assets by local councils;• Contribution to maintenance costs of existing structures;• Preparation of maintenance manuals for project maintenance by

others;• Project data and reporting;• RTA Project Management; and• RTA Client Representation

RTA Project Estimating Strategic Estimate 5 - 1Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

• • • •••

C H A P T E R 5CHAPTER 0STRATEGIC ESTIMATE

5.1 Summary

This chapter sets down the process for preparation of a StrategicEstimate.

5.2 Overview

There are 3 key stages to the preparation of a Strategic Estimate. Theseare:

• Preliminary Project Appreciation Stage;• Estimate Establishment Stage; and• Review and Approval Stage.

It is recommended that an estimate plan be prepared by the ProjectManager, to ensure that proper resources are available and are appliedto preparation of the estimate.

5.3 Preliminary Project Appreciation Stage

The following paragraphs indicate the activities that will be undertakenin this interrogative stage:

Commit sufficient time and resources to each of these stages. Failureto follow a planned process of estimate preparation will lead toestimates of doubtful accuracy.

• • • •••


5.3.1 Estimate Programme Approximately 1 week should be allowed for the preparation of aStrategic Estimate (assuming that all information is available).

5.3.2 Data CollectionThe estimator must be provided with all relevant information. This willinclude:

• An understanding of the proposed contracting strategy for the project (for example: design and construct; construct only; single construction contract; multiple contract packages and the like);

• A detailed description of the scope of the project. This is an essential component in ensuring the accuracy of the estimate. A sample cost estimate scope is contained in Appendix 5.1;

• A complete set of current drawings;• Details of the costs expended on the project to date; and• Any other available information, such as aerial photographs,

computer generated quantities, property valuations, hand over cost estimates and the like.

5.3.3 Project ProgrammeA project development programme is to be prepared. This shouldindicate all significant activities and milestones, together with anapproximate construction programme.

5.3.4 QuantitiesQuantities are likely to be of a very approximate nature and will betaken-off by the estimator, based on his understanding of the projectscope.

5.3.5 Site VisitA site visit should be made by anyone on the estimating team who isunfamiliar with the project.


• • • •••

5.3.6 Construction MethodsFor significant items (such as earthworks or road pavement), theestimator is to determine the probable construction methods that will beadopted by the successful tenderer.

5.4 Estimate Establishment Stage

This is the stage where the project estimate is actually produced. Beforecomputations commence, the estimator must have regard to RTA’srequirements as to final presentation of the estimate, and the WorkBreakdown Structure and Summary required. A sample workbreakdown structure is given in Appendix 5.2.

The following paragraphs indicate the activities that will be undertakenfor a Global Estimate:

5.4.1 Understanding Historical DataHistorical data will be collected and analysed to determine:

• Market conditions prevailing at the time of the tender from which the data has been collected;

• Any peculiarities of the project from which the data has been collected;

• If front-end loading has occurred; and• An approximate allowance for contractors on and off site

overheads and profit (if available).

5.4.2 Adjusting Historical DataHistorical data is to be adjusted to bring it in line with the requirementsof the project being estimated, including (if necessary):

• An adjustment for inflation;• An adjustment for site conditions;• An adjustment for front-end loading; and• An adjustment for contractors on and off site overheads and

profit.

• • • •••


5.4.3 Cost EstimateThe estimate is calculated, by multiplying the global quantities by ratesdeduced from historical data, or from multiplying the coarse quantitiesby the unit rates deduced from historical data.

5.4.4 Contractors Overheads, Risk and MarginGenerally the contractors overheads, risk and margin is included withinthe global rates adopted earlier and no further adjustment is required.

5.4.5 Project Development CostsProject development costs are defined in Chapter 4. At the time ofpreparation of a Strategic Estimate, these costs have probably not beenincurred and may be estimated from past experience.

5.4.6 Detailed Investigation and Design CostsDetailed investigation and design costs are defined in Chapter 4. At thetime of preparation of a Strategic Estimate, these costs have not beenincurred and may be estimated from past experience.

5.4.7 Property Acquisition CostsProperty acquisition costs are defined in Chapter 4. Propertyacquisition costs must be obtained from RTA’s Property Section.

Allowances must be made for known property adjustments.

5.4.8 Hand over CostsHand over costs are defined in Chapter 4. A detailed estimate of thesecosts is to be prepared.


• • • •••

5.4.9 Risk & OpportunityIssues of risk and opportunity are considered in Chapter 3. Some of theavailable software for use in quantification of risk and opportunity islisted in Chapter 10.3.

5.4.10 ContingencyContingency is considered in Chapter 3.

Appropriate contingencies must be added to each component of theproject estimate. At strategic estimate stage, contingencies in the rangeof 35% to 50% are appropriate. Contingencies outside this range mustbe justified.

5.5 Review

Prior to commencement of the Concurrence, Approval and Acceptanceprocedure, the Project Manager should arrange a peer review of theestimate.

This should follow a structured format and be documented.

5.6 Concurrence, Approval and Acceptance

All strategic estimates are subject to concurrence, approval andacceptance as detailed in Chapter 2.

The procedure is detailed in the following flowcharts. [Extract fromPMS 21 Manual.]

It is mandatory that a risk analysis be prepared for strategic costestimates.


• • • •••


PMS-PR-P-91: Procedure for Preparation, Concurrence,Approval and Acceptance of an Estimate of Cost - Sheet 1 of 2

PROCESS MAP

A

ListKnown Risks

Project Manager

ListKey Assumptions

Project Manager

Prepare Estimatein standard formatProject Manager

Start

PlansProject Manager

ScopeProject

Manager/ClientRepresentative

* For all types of estimates use standard workbreakdown structure in Table 3.1 of ProjectManagement Guidelines "Estimating, Scope and CostControl for Development Projects". Refer to Clause5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 RTA Estimating Manual.

* Consider known risks, staging, constructabliity,OHS&R, traffic management and other issues

ProvideReality Checks

Project Manager

Sign Off(preparation)

ProjectManager/SeniorProject Manager

Project Manager

Submit estimate forconcurrence of General

Manager, PMO

Project Manager

Submit estimate for approval:Section Manager <$5m

Branch/Regional Manager >5m

For Strategic, Concept, Detailed Estimate the followingneeds to be considered:* Limit of work,* Design Standards,* Section Staging,* No. of lanes, widths (cross sections)* Pavement,* New or rehab,* Deviation,* Property affect,* Physical constraints,* Environmental constraints,* Statutory impediments,* Geotech,* Unusual features.

DCB

* Strategic - Street Plan or Topographical Map showingalignment, Major Utilities - visible/known

* Concept - Longitudinal Section, Critical Sections. TypicalCross Sections (Cut/Fill), Most Utilities.

* Detailed - Full set of plans including longitudinal section,cross sections, Utilities locations clearly marked.

Check with similar projects in comparable dollars* $/m3 earthwork* $/m2 Pavement* $/ lane km

Information to be submittedwith the estimate for aconcurrence check:* Estimate Type* Plans* Scope* Key assumptions* Known risks* Reality check

IsEstimate of Cost over $20M,$10M for Federally fundedor for a complex project ?

YES

NO



• • • •••

Appendix 5.3 contains a sample Strategic Cost Estimate Reportsubmitted for Concurrence, Acceptance and Approval.


PROCESS MAP

A

General Manager,PMO

Estimator, PMO

Estimator, PMO

Estimator, PMO

Project Manager

ClientRepresentative


DCB

* Log receipt of estimate* Is supporting information

complete and amount of estimateacceptable ?

YES

NO

Project Manager to reviseestimate / details

Sign Off(Concurrence Check)

Sign Off(Concurrence)

Return estimate andsupporting information with

GM, PMO Concurrence

Submit estimate for approvalSection Manager <$5m

Branch/Regional Manager $5m - $50mDirector, Client Services > $50m

Is estimate consistent with projectscoping and available funding ?

YES

NO

Submit estimate to Client foracceptance

*Estimate accepted* Project Budget set or revised

Client

FINISH


• • • •••


Appendix 5.3 contains a sample strategic estimate report, to besubmitted for concurrence, approval and acceptance of the strategiccost estimate.

Appendix 5.4 contains the Verification Checklist, to be submitted forconcurrence, approval and acceptance of the strategic cost estimate.

Appendix 5.5 contains the Estimate Approval and Acceptance form tobe submitted for concurrence, approval and acceptance of the strategiccost estimate.

• • • •••

A P P E N D I X 5 . 1

CHAPTER 0SAMPLE COST ESTIMATE SCOPE

• • • •••


Scope of Work for Robinvale – Euston Bridge Replacement Project

The proposed work involves construction of a new crossing over the Murray River and flood plain at Robinvale. The project extends from the Murray Valley Highway in Robinvale, (Victoria) to the Sturt Highway in NSW, connecting either in or near Euston. The project is required to provide a two-lane, two-way flood free crossing of the Murray River and floodplain, and is to incorporate provision for cyclists/pedestrians and river navigation. Six potential alignments identified at a Value Management Study held in Robinvale during March 1999 are being investigated in detail, with the aim of selecting the preferred option. (i) Assumptions

The following is assumed, with resultant risks:

* Bridge and approaches are technically feasible to build using normal design and construction techniques.

* The afflux created by the existing crossing will be acceptable to DLWC and MDBC. (The estimates are based upon bridge lengths and waterway areas that create approximately the same afflux as that created by the existing crossing).

* Native Title and indigenous issues will not prevent construction.

* Heritage status of existing bridge will not impact on the proposal (eg for Options A, D and E, a modern bridge will be permitted near the existing bridge, if the existing bridge is to be retained for heritage reasons).

* An allowance of $1M for demolition or other disposition of the existing bridges will be adequate. (No allowance has been made for refurbishment or ongoing upkeep of the existing bridges).

* At-grade intersections will be adequate.

* Current standards providing 3.5m wide lane widths and lm and 2m shoulders on the bridges and approaches respectively will be adequate.

* A combined pedestrian/cyclist pathway is required on the section of the bridge that crosses the Murray River, with the remainder of the pathway being at ground level.

* The following widths have been assumed for estimating and comparison of the options:

Bridge with combined pedestrian cycleway - total width 12.5m comprising two 3.5m wide travel lanes, lm wide shoulders, 2m wide combined pedestrian/cycleway. Allowing for traffic barriers and a pedestrian fence, this results in a total width of 12.5m, and a width between kerbs for estimating purposes of 11.5m.

Bride without pedestrian/cycleway - total width l0m comprising two 3.5m wide travel lanes, 1m wide shoulders and 0.5m wide allowances for traffic barrier systems. Width between kerbs for estimating - 9m.

Approach roads - formation width of 11m comprising two 3.5m wide travel lanes, 2m wide shoulders and lm rounding on the edge of the formation (verge material).

(ii) Preliminary Details of each Option

Option A The alignment of this crossing is

• river and on the main floodplain section - adjacent to and on the western side of the existing crossing;

• north of Approach Bridge No 2 - retain existing alignment. The locations of the new bridges and embankments across the floodplain are adjacent to the existing bridges and embankments, except near the northern end where the new road is directly over the existing road. • Main bridge over the River and part of the floodplain

* Total length 670m

* Long span and high level over river to provide for river navigation

* Includes separate 2m wide cycle/footway • Pedestrian/cyclist access from the northern end of the Main Bridge to the

floodplain to be provided down the embankment between the Main Bridge and Approach Bridge No 1 (Pedestrian/cyclist pathway, if required, to be provided at ground level between Main Bridge and Sturt Highway, as part of landscaping works).

• Approach bridge No 1

* Total length 145m

* Normal level and span lengths over floodplain (above HFL) • Approach Bridge No 2

* Total length 167m

* Normal level and span lengths over floodplain (above HFL) • Approach bridge No 3

* Total length 43m

* Retain existing bridge • Approach Roads, includes:

* Southern approach to Main Bridge in Robinvale - 280m long

* Side-road connection to the river foreshore and caravan park area at southern end of the Main Bridge (in Robinvale)

* Section between Main Bridge and Approach Bridge No 1-145m long and includes pedestrian/cyclist pathway connection from road level to ground level

* Section between Approach Bridges Nos 1 and 2 - 223m long

* Section between Approach Bridges Nos 2 and 3 - 497m long

* Section between Approach Bridge No 3 and Sturt Hwy - 660m long

* Total earthworks 65,030m3

* Flexible crushed rock pavement with bituminous flush seal (Design life min 20 years)

* Rehabilitate existing pavement from 200m south of Approach Bridge No 2 to the Sturt Highway, with new full depth pavement on widened shoulders - (adopt existing grade, plus overlay thickness, to allow for rehabilitation of the existing pavement involving insitu stabilization and base layer overlay with a min design life of 20 years).

* Barrier fencing from southern approach to 200m north of Approach Bridge No 2.

Option B

This crossing connects the Murray Valley Highway, at the Latje Road junction in Robinvale, with the existing Sturt Highway roundabout intersection in Euston, and passes through the State Forest area in Victoria in close proximity to the Murray River.

• One Bridge to be provided over the River and the floodplain

* Total length 1,470m

* Long span and high level section over the river to provide for navigation (500m long), with normal level and span lengths (above HFL) through the State Forest floodplain area (970m long)

* Includes a separate 2m wide cycle/footway on the high level section over the river, connecting to a pathway at ground level through the State Forest area to Robinvale (provide as part of landscaping work, if required). On NSW side, pathway continues on the approach formation to ground level.

• Approach Roads, includes:

* South eastern approach - connecting the Murray Valley Highway at the Latje Rd junction (provide new roundabout junction) to the south eastern bridge abutment in the State Forest area near the edge of the floodplain (approximately 800m long). Provide junction with south leg of Moore St.

* North western approach - Reinforced earth embankment (or extend bridge) connecting the high level bridge abutment at the edge of the river to the roundabout in Euston (approximately 235m long).


* Flexible crushed rock pavement with bituminous seal (Design life min 20 years)

Option C This crossing connects the Murray Valley Highway at the Latje Road junction in Robinvale with the Sturt Highway at a new intersection west of Euston. It passes

through the State Forest area in Victoria and skirts around the south western edge of Euston.

• One Bridge to be provided over the River and the floodplain * Total length 1,400m

* Long span and high level section over the river to provide for navigation (500m long), with normal level and span lengths (above HFL) through the State Forest floodplain area (900m long)

* Includes a separate 2m wide cycle/footway on the high level section over the river, connecting to a pathway at ground level through the State Forest area to Robinvale (provide pathway as part of landscaping work, if required)


* South eastern approach - connecting the Murray Valley Highway at the Latje Rd junction (provide new roundabout junction) to the south eastern bridge abutment in the State Forest area near the edge of the floodplain (approximately 1,125m long). Provide junction with south leg of Moore St.

* North western approach - connecting bridge abutment with Sturt Highway (approximately 1,480m long). Includes at-grade intersection connecting southern leg of Cowper Street.

* Substantial drainage structures required in floodplain sections of the approaches in Victoria and NSW



Option D This crossing connects the Murray Valley Highway, on the approach to the existing bridge in Robinvale, with the Sturt Highway at Berthan Street intersection (approximately 1 km north of the roundabout in Euston) via the NSW floodplain.

• Main bridge over the River and the majority of the floodplain * Total length 1,308m

* Long span and high level section over the river to provide for navigation (500m long), with normal level and span lengths (above HFL) through the NSW side floodplain (808m long)

* Includes a separate 2m wide cycle/footway on the high level section over the river, connecting to a pathway at ground level through the NSW side floodplain (provide as part of landscaping work, if required).


* Total length 200m

* Normal level and span lengths over part of the floodplain (Above HFL)

• Approach Roads, includes: * Southern approach to Main Bridge in Robinvale - 440m long


* Section between Main Bridge and Approach Bridge No 1 - 970m long

* Section between Approach Bridges No 1 and Sturt Hwy - 209m long

* New junction with Sturt Highway at Berthan St



Option E This crossing connects the Murray Valley Highway, on the approach to the existing bridge in Robinvale, with the Sturt Highway at the Euston roundabout via the NSW floodplain.

• Main bridge over the River and the majority of the floodplain * Total length 1,508m

* Long span and high level section over the river to provide for navigation (500m long), with normal level and span lengths (above HFL) through the NSW side floodplain (1,008m long)

* Includes a separate 2m wide cycle/footway on the high level section over the river, connecting to a pathway at ground level through the NSW side floodplain (provide as part of landscaping work, if required).


* Total length 200m

* Normal level and span lengths over part of the floodplain (Above HFL)


* Southern approach to Main Bridge in Robinvale - 440m long


* Section between Main Bridge and Approach Bridge No 1 - 372m long

* Section between Approach Bridges No 1 and Sturt Hwy - 440m long



Option F

This Option is similar to Option B except that the bridge through the State Forest floodplain has been located at a greater distance from the river for environmental

reasons. It connects the Murray Valley Highway, at the Latje Road junction in Robinvale, with the Sturt Highway roundabout intersection in Euston.

• One Bridge to be provided over the River and the floodplain * Total length 1,635m

* Long span and high level section over the river to provide for navigation (500m long), with normal level and span lengths (above HFL) through the State Forest floodplain area (1,135m long)

* Includes a separate 2m wide cycle/footway on the high level section over the river, connecting to a pathway at ground level through the State Forest area to Robinvale (provide as part of landscaping work, if required). On NSW side, pathway continues on the approach formation to ground level.


* South eastern approach - connecting the Murray Valley Highway at the Latje Rd junction (provide new roundabout junction) to the south eastern bridge abutment in the State Forest area near the edge of the floodplain (approximately 800m long). Provide junction with south leg of Moore St.

* North western approach - Reinforced earth embankment connecting the high level bridge abutment to the roundabout in Euston (approximately 230m long).



• • • •••

A P P E N D I X 5 . 2

CHAPTER 0SAMPLE WORK BREAKDOWNSTRUCTURE

• • • •••


EXAMPLE WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE FOR A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Note: This structure is taken down to subjob level.

Job Subjobs Subjob Component

Code

Service Competition

Category

1. Project Development - Route Selection by SKM Pty Ltd C EC - Advice from other Government Agencies C ACQUT - Prepare EIS by Maunsells C EC -Acid Soil Investigation -UNSW C EC - Technical Input by Project Team C RTAD - Acid Soil Peer Review-UTS C EC - Concept Review by RTA Operations C RTAB - Prepare Representations Report, Connell

Wagner C EC

- Project Management by PHO PC RTAB - Project Estimating by PMO PC RTAD - Client Representation by PHO

MC RTAD

2. Detailed Investigation - Geotechnical Investigation by ETEC D EC and Design - Hydraulics/Hydrology by Water Pty/Ltd D EC - Koala Monitoring -Aus. Museum D EC - Advice from other Government Agencies D ACQUT - Public Utility Search by Seek D EC - Roadworks Design, RTA Operations D RTAB - Bridgeworks Design by Maunsells D EC - Design Review by Kinhills D EC - Technical Input by Project Team D RTAD - Prepare Project EMP by Acacia D EC - Prepare Contract Documents, Northern

Region D RTAD

- Road Safety Audits by Northern Region D RTAD - Prepare detailed estimate by Northern

Region PD RTAD

- Project Management by Northern Region PD RTAD - Client Representation by PHO

MD RTAD

3. Property Acquisition - Property Valuations by VG V ACQUT - Cadastral Survey by Pointed Pty Ltd V EC - Purchase A J King Property A ACQUT - Purchase Betters Property A ACQUT - Demolition of Jack Property by Acme A EC - Project Management by Hunter Region PA RTAD - Client Representation by PHO

MA RTAD

4. Public Utility Adjustments - Telstra Adjustments U ACQUT - Electricity by Energy Australia U ACQUT - Water/Sewerage by Byron Council U ACQUT - Project Management by PMS PU RTAB - Client Representation by PHO MU RTAD

Job Subjobs Subjob

Component Code

Service Competition

Category

5. Bridge Construction - Y River Bridge by Fernandes I EC - 2 Creek Bridge by RTA Hunter Region I RTAB - Technical Advice, Bridge Branch I RTAD - Review of EMP by Acacia I EC - Project Management by PMS PI RTAD - Site management & Surveillance by PED PS EC - Client Representation by PHO

MI RTAD

6. Roadwork Construction - Roadworks by Big Contractor Pty Ltd I EC - Technical Advice - Pavement Branch I RTAD - Demolition of Jack property by Acme I EC - Systems Auditing by Project Team PI RTAB - Project Management by PMS PI RTAB - Construction Surveillance by PMS PS RTAB - Site management & Surveillance by PED PS EC - Client Representation by PHO MI RTAD - Decision Report Audit by PHO MI RTAD 7. Handover - Refurbish Old Network by Council O LGF - Project Data & Reporting by CMP H RTAB - Prepare Operations EMP by Acacia H EC - Project Management by PMS PH RTAB - Client Representation by PHO MH RTAD

• • • •••

A P P E N D I X 5 . 3

CHAPTER 0SAMPLE STRATEGIC ESTIMATEREPORT

• • • •••


1

MHSEMEM2.DOC

10/196.1593 AJS

Memorandum

Pacific Highway Office

TO: General Manager FROM: R Dallen Project Management Office Project Development Manager BLACKTOWN Pacific Highway Office (02) 6640 1376 SUBJECT: PACIFIC HIGHWAY. UPGRADE FROM MOORLAND TO HERONS

CREEK. STRATEGIC ESTIMATE.

PURPOSE This memorandum formally seeks concurrence to the Strategic Estimate for the proposed Upgrade from Moorland to Herons Creek. The Strategic Project Estimate ranges in an amount from $150 to 180 million. BACKGROUND The project involves upgrading of a 21.9km section of the Pacific Highway by widening, duplication and/or deviation from Camp Obadiah to the existing dual carriageway at Herons Creek, between 36.6km and 58.5km north of Taree. The study area for the proposed upgrade is to include the townships of Johns River and Kew. Refer Attachment ‘A’. To the south, the EIS for the Coopernook to Moorland project has been prepared and placed on public exhibition. The two projects interface in the vicinity of Camp Obadiah. To the north, this project ties into the existing dual carriageway on the Herons Creek Deviation, which was opened to traffic in July 1998. The project interface is located at the commencement of the dual carriageway section near Bobs Creek Road at Herons Creek. The Pacific Highway Office has previously engaged the RTA Operations Technical Services Branch to undertake strategic concept development for this project. The strategic concept development was carried out, firstly, in order to examine the broad engineering, environmental and planning constraints which would apply to an upgrading of this length of the Pacific Highway. Secondly, the strategic project development work included development of two possible upgrade options to establish the feasibility and Strategic Cost Estimate for the project. A Strategic Concept Design Report (February 2000) has been prepared by the RTA Operations Technical Services Branch detailing strategic concept design development, design input data gathered and broad environmental, visual and geotechnical considerations. Formal Project Development Work for this project has recently commenced. The firm of Ove Arup and Partners Pty Ltd has been commissioned to provide the project development services for this project which include route selection, development of the preliminary engineering design, preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and post EIS activities. This Strategic Estimate has, therefore, been prepared in consultation with Ove Arup and Partners.

2

MHSEMEM2.DOC

Community consultation has commenced with public meetings to introduce the study team and describe the scope of the project to the local community held at Johns River and Kew in October 2000. A Planning Focus meeting was also held in October 2000 at Port Macquarie. Refer Attachment ‘B’. It is expected that there will be considerable community interest in the development and delivery of this project. To afford the broader community the opportunity to make a demonstrable input to the process, and to ensure that the requirements and aspirations of the community are adequately and appropriately addressed, two Community Focus Groups have been established. The initial meetings were held in December 2000 at Johns River and Kew. Issues such as flora and fauna, waterways and wetlands, water quality, geotechnical, land use and access, social impact, noise, visual amenity and urban design will be of major importance to the project. At this stage, the study area has been defined and a considerable number of preliminary route options have been examined and introduced to the Community Focus Groups. These preliminary route options have been developed on the basis of desktop and preliminary investigations only and are yet to be refined by the project team and presented to the broader community. ESTIMATE DETAILS For the purpose of defining the likely range for the Strategic Project Estimate, three (3) option scenarios have been costed and are detailed as Attachment ‘C’. These three option scenarios have been chosen as they are considered to best represent the likely range of feasible route options that will ultimately be presented to the community. The alignment options for these Strategic Estimates are depicted in Attachment ‘D’ and include:

1. Estimate ‘A’ – (Lowest Cost $150M.) - 110km/hour design upgrade along the entire existing highway corridor, with the exception of an 80km/hour design through the townships of Johns River and Kew. Traffic Signals have been allowed at the intersection with Ocean Drive/Kendall Road. Total length 21.9km;

2. Estimate ‘B’ - (Likely Mid Range Cost $170M.) - 110km/hour design upgrade

generally along the existing highway corridor, with an Inner Western Bypass of Johns River and an Inner Western Bypass of Kew. Total length 22.0km; and

3. Estimate ‘C’ - (Likely Highest Cost $180M.) - 110km/hour design upgrade

generally along the existing highway corridor, with an Inner Eastern Bypass of Johns River and an Outer Western Bypass of Kew. Total length 22.5km.

These Strategic Estimates take into consideration the Strategic Concept Design work completed by RTA Operations in February 2000, and the more recent preliminary Route Selection work currently being carried out by Ove Arup and Partners. An extract from the RTA Operations Strategic Concept Design Report, summarising the broad environmental issues identified and likely to impact upon the project, is included as Attachment ‘E’.

3

MHSEMEM2.DOC

This improved understanding of the broad environmental project issues, has lead to the inclusion in the strategic estimates of, for example, likely requirements by the National Parks and Wildlife Service for the provision of compensatory habitat. It has also led to adoption of a lower contingency allowance on some cost items associated with the delivery of the project. The Strategic Estimate Subsidiary Sheet documentation incorporates numerous notes detailing assumptions and clarification of some of these issues. Geotechnical features of the project include soft soil and potential acid sulphate soil issues in the vicinity of the Stewarts and Camden Haven Rivers, and a number of hard rock cuttings located north of the Stewarts River bridge which may require some blasting. Geotechnical investigations will be ongoing, with an extensive amount of preliminary and detailed assessment being carried out during both the Option Investigation Phase and the Design Development and Approval Phase. The Strategic Estimates reflect these requirements and also include some allowance for “fine tuning” of the geotechnical investigations during the project Detailed Design and Implementation Phase. Corporate Contributions have been applied to the relevant cost items at a rate of 10% and have been depicted on the Strategic Estimate Subsidiary Sheets. These Corporate Contributions have been included in each item amount (excluding contingency), in the Strategic Estimate Summary Sheets. COMPARISON WITH OTHER PROJECTS The estimated cost for this project is low relative to other projects being undertaken under the Pacific Highway Upgrading Program. The following table compares the Upgrade from Moorland to Herons Creek with other Pacific Highway projects.

Project No.

Project Description

Date open

Lane km Total Project Cost ($,000)

Cost / Lane km

($,000)

Comment

66300 Upgrade from Moorland to Herons Creek

na 98 to 101 147,020 to 176,754 1,500 to 1,750 Strategic Estimate

65556 Sapphire to Woolgoolga

na 85 to 100

145,673 to 206,625 1,714 to 2,066 Strategic Estimate

65167 Buladelah Bypass na 32.8 to 39.2 130,057 to 148,456 3,330 to 4,472 Revised Strategic Estimate

68221 Bangalow to St. Helena

na 20.9 65,000 3,100 Concept Estimate

62185 Ballina Bypass na 50.8 198,000 3,900 Revised Concept Estimate.

3893 Lyons Road to Englands Road

na 21.2 58,400 2,755 Under construction. Heavy traffic conditions

66301 Taree to Coopernook na 29.6 53,000 1,791 Concept Estimate.

64706 Coopernook Bypass na 16.8 60,000 3,571 Concept Estimate.

1846 Taree Bypass May-00 58 125,800 2,169 Floodplain and River crossings.

4087 Raymond Terrace Bypass

Dec-98 39.14 77,700 1,985 Greenfields, staging was not ideal due to late decision to duplicate bypass.

66166 Coolongolook to Wang Wauk

na 23.4 49,200 2,103 Under construction. Minimum work on existing carriageway

4521 Wang Wauk to Bundacree Creek

Dec-98 13.9 21,000 1,511

4

MHSEMEM2.DOC

Reasons for the relatively low estimated cost for the Upgrade from Moorland to Herons Creek include:

(a) With the exception of the bypass route options which may be required around the townships of Johns River and Kew, the project is expected to retain a large proportion of the existing highway asset. The majority of the proposed highway duplication, is likely to take place primarily along the existing highway corridor.

(b) At this stage, the proposed lengths of the preliminary bypass route options for Johns River and Kew are relatively short given the overall project length. Therefore the project cost rate per km, is generally low with the range of likely estimated costs, being directly attributed to the various Johns River and Kew bypass route option scenarios.

(c) Accessibility for construction plant and provision for existing traffic are expected to be straightforward due to the proximity of the existing highway formation.

ATTACHMENTS TO THIS MEMORANDUM Please find attached the following:

(a) Attachment A - Map of study area. (b) Attachment B – Community Newsletter No.1. (c) Attachment C – Strategic Estimate Summary and Subsidiary Sheets for the three

(3) considered options scenarios (Estimates A, B and C). These include the lowest ($150M), likely mid range ($170M) and likely highest ($180M) cost options ($current).

(d) Attachment D – 1:25,000 Scale Topographical Maps depicting the location for each of the alignment option scenarios costed in Estimates A, B and C.

(e) Attachment E – Summary of Environmental Issues. (Extract from the Strategic Concept Design Report prepared by RTA Operations).

(f) Attachment F - Estimate Approval and Acceptance Form. FUTURE ACTION A Project Development Proposal (PDP) is currently being prepared and will be submitted for approval following concurrence to the Strategic Estimate. The project team is working towards a public display of route options in April/May 2001. Revised Strategic Estimates will be prepared and detailed for each feasible option, in advance of the public display. A Preliminary Estimate will be prepared as part of the submission of a Preferred Option Report for this project. The Preferred Route Option will take into consideration community input arising from the route options display.

5

MHSEMEM2.DOC

RECOMMENDATION Following review, it is recommended that concurrence be granted to these Strategic Estimates for the Upgrade from Moorland to Herons Creek in an amount ranging from $150 to 180 million. Refer Attachment ‘F’. R Dallen Project Development Manager Encl.

Strategic Estimate of Cost Upgrade from Moorland to Herons Creek

Attachment A

Attachment A - Map of study area.


Attachment B

Attachment B – Community Newsletter No.1.


Attachment C

Attachment C – Strategic Estimate Summary and Subsidiary Sheets.

Estimate A - Lowest Cost Scenario ($150M)

Estimate B - Likely Mid Range Cost Scenario ($170M)

Estimate C - Likely Highest Cost Scenario ($180M)

ESTIMATE SUMMARY SHEET - ESTIMATE AProject:Project No. 66300 Date: February 2001 Estimate Type: Strategic (Lowest Cost Scenario)

% of Total Cost

% Amount $000's

1. Project Development1(a) Route/Concept/EIS or REF 5,583 26 1,478 7,061 1(b) Project Management Services 462 25 116 578 1(c) Client Representation 110 25 28 138

Sub Total 6,155 26 1,621 7,776 5.29

2. Investigation and Design2(a) Investigation and Design 2,530 30 759 3,289 2(b) Project Management Services 385 30 116 501 2(c) Client Representation 88 30 26 114

Sub Total 3,003 30 901 3,904 2.66

3. Property Acquisitions3(a) Acquire Property 3,200 100 3,200 6,400 3(b) Professional Services for Property 1,255 25 314 1,569 3(c) Project Management Services 275 25 69 344 3(d) Client Representation 11 25 3 14

Sub Total 4,741 76 3,585 8,327 5.66

4. Public Utility Adjustments4(a) Adjust Utilities 1,550 100 1,550 3,100 4(b) Project Management Services 44 40 18 62 4(c) Client Representation 11 25 3 14

Sub Total 1,605 98 1,570 3,175 2.16

5. Infrastructure Construction

5(a +b+c) Infrastructure *See Below 84,940 35 30,088 115,028 5(d) Project Management Services 6,820 25 1,705 8,525 5(e) Client Representation 132 25 33 165

Sub Total 91,892 35 31,826 123,718 84.15

6. Handover6(a) Refurbish Old Route - 40 - - 6(b) Project data and performance 60 40 24 84 6(c) Project Management Services 22 25 6 28 6(d) Client Representation 11 25 3 14

Sub Total 93 35 32 125 0.09

TOTAL 107,489 37 39,535 147,024

Rounded Total $M 150

* Calculation Spreadsheet for Item 5 - Infrastructure Construction Components 5(a), 5(b) and 5(c) - Infrastructure


ItemEstimate

(excluding contingency)

Contingency %

Contingency Amount

Estimate (including

contingency)Infrastructure5(a) Base Infrastruture- Earthworks 10,675 35 3,779 14,454 - Drainage 6,570 35 2,300 8,870 - Pavements 36,775 35 12,871 49,646 - Structures 14,000 35 4,900 18,900 - Furniture/signs/delineation/barriers 2,960 35 1,036 3,996

Sub Total 70,980 35 24,886 95,866 5(b) Environmental Works- Landscaping 2,000 35 700 2,700 - Erosion and sed control inc wetlands 2,220 35 777 2,997 - Fauna crossings/protection 1,000 35 350 1,350 - Noise attenuation 3,500 35 1,225 4,725 - Compensatory Habitat 500 35 175 675 - Environmental Monitoring 500 35 175 675 - Other Agency Costs 50 35 18 68

Sub Total 9,770 35 3,420 13,190 5(c) General Activities- Site establishment & overhead 750 40 300 1,050 - Property adjustments / fencing 775 35 271 1,046 - Traffic Management 2,665 45 1,211 3,876

Sub Total 4,190 43 1,783 5,973 TOTAL 84,940 35 30,088 115,028

Note: All figures are current $000's

Total Amount $M % of Total Est

Project Management 10.04 6.8

Client Representation 0.46 0.3

MOORLAND to HERONS CK. - Existing Highway Upgrade

CommentsItemEstimate $000's


Contingency Estimate $000's (including

contingency)

Based on detailed estimate including Professional Services Contractor's price (Ove Arup & Partners). Extensive Geotechnical Investigation allowed prior to Detailed Design and Implementation.

Locations of major services plant known.

Nil handover of existing highway to Council required, and only minor lengths of new local road. (eg. Johns River Service Roads, various consolidated access points, etc.)

Includes allowances for Geotech (fine tuning), Bridge Road Drainage & Pavement Design, Construction Staging, Visual Landscape & Urban Design, Environmental Risk & Value Management, Community Consult, etc

Assumes existing corridor used and only major acquisitions are through Johns River and Kew (80km/hr Design through townships)

MHSEPMO4.XLS - Est. Summary Sht-A Page 1 24/04/2001

Reality Checks

Cost $M/km 6.71

Cost $M/lane*km 1.50

Cost $/m3 earthworks 10.00

Cost $/m2 Pavement 90.00

Cost $/m2 Bridges 2,000.00

SUPPORTING ASSUMPTIONS - Estimate A - Existing Highway UpgradeLength (km/m) Width m Quantity (m2/m3) $Rate

Length km 21.9Lane km 98Typical Cross Section: Travel Lane 3.5 4 Turning/Auxillary Lanes 3.0/3.5 various Central Median 11 1 Outer Shoulder 2.5 2 Inner Shoulder 0.5 2Interchanges:

Major Intersections: 7 @ 700m extra lanes @ 3.5m 5km 3.5 17,500 90Local Road/ Service Rds: Various locations, assume 2.5km 10 25,000 65Major Structures (based on existing lengths, duplicate for new carriageway): Johns River Township (Unnamed) 10 10.5 105 Stewarts River 230 10.5 2,415 Passionfruit Ck 10 10.5 105 Stoney Ck 15 21 315 Unnamed Ck 10 10.5 105 Rossglen Rail Overbridge 45 10.5 473 Camden Haven River 165 10.5 1,733 Camden Haven Floodplain 25 21 525 Walkers Ck 10 10.5 105 Herons Ck Flood Channel 33 10.5 347 Herons Ck Bridge 35 21 735

Total 588 6,962 2,000Main Pavements: New Carriageway 275,000 90 Overlay Existing 185,000 65Earthworks: Cut 600,000 10 Fill 230,000 10 Select Fill 125,000 25Drainage other than major structures: 21.9km 300,000

Corporate Contributions:

Project Development:

Investigation and design:

Typical Cross Section:

Acquisition:

Utilities:

Earthworks:

Drainage:

Pavement:

Structures:

Fauna/ Compensatory Habitat:

Noise Attenuation:

See above. $2,000/m2 has been adopted as a general rate representing an average when considering the various classes of structures required.

Minimal provisions assumed. Likely fauna movements are between National Park areas where the existing road corridor is used.

Quantities adopted on the basis that provisions will likely be required at Johns River and Kew due to upgrading along the existing alignment with the provision of additional travel and turning lanes.

Due to the surrounding topography, cross drainage requirements are less than typically encountered on Pacific Highway projects, with very few crossings other than major structures. This allowance is considered reasonably generous.

Assumed 150mm concrete/200mm Asphalt. Conservative assumption to overlay existing with 200mm Asphalt.

Nil. This option based on upgrading the existing highway at Johns River & Kew. Traffic Signals allowed at Kew.

Corporate Contribution has been set at 10% for this Strategic Estimate. (Refer Subsidiary Sheet).

Represents 5.2% of total project cost. An amount has been included for the RTA Operations Strategic development work already completed. The majority of the Geotechnical Investigation has been allowed up front prior to Detailed Design and Implementation.

Represents 2.7% of total project cost. Majority of design will be relatively simple duplication within existing highway corridor. Detailed issues will need to be addressed for the townships of Johns River and Kew. A small allowance is included for “fine tuning” of the geotechnical investigations already completed during the Option Investigation and the Design Development Phase.

This estimate is based on retaining the existing highway as one carriageway and constructing a new carriageway beside the existing. Duplication may involve widening both sides of the existing highway within the townships of Johns River & Kew.

Will be impacts on properties along the existing corridor and some major acquisitions may be required through Johns River and Kew including commercial sites.

Location of major plant is known from earlier investigations. Allowance is considered reasonable.

Quantity based on 1999/2000 RTA Operation Strategic Concept work. Rate reflects generally easy work without major traffic issues.

OTHER SUPPORTING DATA

MHSEPMO4.XLS - Est. Summary Sht-A Page 2 24/04/2001

ESTIMATE SUBSIDIARY SHEET - ESTIMATE A SH10 - MOORLAND TO HERONS CREEK STRATEGIC CONCEPT ESTIMATE (LOWEST COST CASE )

UPGRADE ALONG EXISTING HIGHWAY - JOHNS RIVER OPTION (J - C) & KEW OPTION (K - D)

CATEGORY ITEM UNIT QUANTITY RATE BASE TOTAL CORPORATE CONTRIBUTION

ESTIMATE EXCLUDING

CONTINGENCYCONTINGENCY

ESTIMATE INCLUDING

CONTINGENCYCOMMENTS

(Note 1) ($) % ($) ($) % ($) ($)1. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

1(a) Strategic Concept Development item 1 300,000 300,000 10 30,000 330,000 0 0 330,000 RTA Operations1(a) Survey/Photogrammetry item 1 200,000 200,000 10 20,000 220,000 25 55,000 275,000 These elements1(a) Route Options/Selection item 1 500,000 500,000 10 50,000 550,000 25 137,500 687,500 make up ARUP1(a) Preliminary Engineering Design item 1 500,000 500,000 10 50,000 550,000 25 137,500 687,500 services plus 1(a) EIS/Community item 1 1,000,000 1,000,000 10 100,000 1,100,000 30 330,000 1,430,000 detailed Geotech1(a) Geotechnical Inv.- Prelim. & Det. item 1 2,000,000 2,000,000 10 200,000 2,200,000 30 660,000 2,860,000 contract.1(a) RTA Input including Rep's Report item 1 500,000 500,000 10 50,000 550,000 25 137,500 687,5001(a) Other Agencies item 1 75,000 75,000 10 7,500 82,500 25 20,625 103,1251(a) SUBTOTALS 5,075,000 507,500 5,582,500 26 1,478,125 7,060,6251(b) Project Management item 1 420,000 420,000 10 42,000 462,000 25 115,500 577,5001(c) Client Representation item 1 100,000 100,000 10 10,000 110,000 25 27,500 137,500

TOTALS FOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 5,595,000 559,500 6,154,500 26 1,621,125 7,775,625

2. INVESTIGATION AND DESIGN2(a) Detailed design & docs item 1 2,000,000 2,000,000 10 200,000 2,200,000 30 660,000 2,860,0002(a) Environmental monitoring item 1 250,000 250,000 10 25,000 275,000 30 82,500 357,5002(a) Other Agencies item 1 50,000 50,000 10 5,000 55,000 30 16,500 71,5002(a) SUBTOTALS 2,300,000 230,000 2,530,000 30 759,000 3,289,0002(b) Project Management item 1 350,000 350,000 10 35,000 385,000 30 115,500 500,5002(c) Client Representation item 1 80,000 80,000 10 8,000 88,000 30 26,400 114,400

TOTALS FOR INVESTIGATION AND DESIGN 2,730,000 273,000 3,003,000 30 900,900 3,903,900

3. PROPERTY ACQUISITION3(a) Residential Land/Houses item 1 3,000,000 3,000,000 0 3,000,000 100 3,000,000 6,000,000 Blocks < 1500m23(a) Rural Land Ha 10 20,000 200,000 0 200,000 100 200,000 400,0003(a) Commercial Land m2 0 0 0 0 0 03(a) SUBTOTALS 3,200,000 0 3,200,000 100 3,200,000 6,400,0003(b) Acquisition Survey item 1 150,000 150,000 10 15,000 165,000 25 41,250 206,2503(b) Plans and Registrations properties 65 1,000 65,000 10 6,500 71,500 25 17,875 89,3753(b) Technical Input properties 65 500 32,500 10 3,250 35,750 25 8,938 44,6883(b) Valuations properties 65 1,000 65,000 0 65,000 25 16,250 81,2503(b) Property Negotiations properties 65 3,750 243,750 10 24,375 268,125 25 67,031 335,1563(b) Legals & Fees properties 65 10,000 650,000 0 650,000 25 162,500 812,5003(b) SUBTOTALS 1,206,250 49,125 1,255,375 25 313,844 1,569,2193(c) Project Management item 1 250,000 250,000 10 25,000 275,000 25 68,750 343,7503(d) Client Representation item 1 10,000 10,000 10 1,000 11,000 25 2,750 13,750

TOTALS FOR PROPERTY ACQUISITION 4,666,250 75,125 4,741,375 76 3,585,344 8,326,719

4. PUBLIC UTILITY ADJUSTMENTS4(a) Sewer item 1 100,000 100,000 0 100,000 100 100,000 200,0004(a) Water - Various dia. m 3,200 100 320,000 0 320,000 100 320,000 640,0004(a) Gas item 0 0 0 0 0 04(a) Electricity (crossings) ea 6 30,000 180,000 0 180,000 100 180,000 360,0004(a) Telstra item 1 300,000 300,000 0 300,000 100 300,000 600,0004(a) Optus item 1 650,000 650,000 0 650,000 100 650,000 1,300,0004(a) SUBTOTALS 1,550,000 0 1,550,000 100 1,550,000 3,100,0004(b) Project Management item 1 40,000 40,000 10 4,000 44,000 40 17,600 61,6004(c) Client Representation item 1 10,000 10,000 10 1,000 11,000 25 2,750 13,750

TOTALS FOR PUBLIC UTILITY ADJUSTMENTS 1,600,000 5,000 1,605,000 98 1,570,350 3,175,350

5. INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION

5(a)Base InfrastructureEarthworks Clearing Ha 20 5,000 100,000 0 100,000 40 40,000 140,000Earthworks Strip Topsoil m3 30,000 10 300,000 0 300,000 40 120,000 420,000 200mm allowedEarthworks Cut to Spoil m3 340,000 10 3,400,000 0 3,400,000 35 1,190,000 4,590,000Earthworks Unsuitable m3 30,000 15 450,000 0 450,000 40 180,000 630,000Earthworks Cut to Fill m3 230,000 10 2,300,000 0 2,300,000 35 805,000 3,105,000Earthworks Select Fill m3 125,000 25 3,125,000 0 3,125,000 35 1,093,750 4,218,750 500mm layer allowedEarthworks Reinforced Soil walls item 1 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 35 350,000 1,350,000 Adjacent RailwayEarthworks SUBTOTALS 10,675,000 0 10,675,000 35 3,778,750 14,453,750Drainage General drainage km 21.9 300,000 6,570,000 0 6,570,000 35 2,299,500 8,869,500 Includes culverts,

pits,subsoils, K&G, GPTs.Drainage SUBTOTALS 6,570,000 0 6,570,000 35 2,299,500 8,869,500Pavements Pavement m2 275,000 90 24,750,000 0 24,750,000 35 8,662,500 33,412,500 Refer Note 2Pavements Asphalt Overlay (200mm) m2 185,000 65 12,025,000 0 12,025,000 35 4,208,750 16,233,750 Overlay existingPavements SUBTOTALS 36,775,000 0 36,775,000 35 12,871,250 49,646,250Structures Bridges & Major Structures (11) m2 7,000 2,000 14,000,000 0 14,000,000 35 4,900,000 18,900,000Structures SUBTOTALS 14,000,000 0 14,000,000 35 4,900,000 18,900,000Furniture etc. Barriers - g'rail/wire rope m 13,000 120 1,560,000 0 1,560,000 35 546,000 2,106,000Furniture etc. Type F barrier/Parapet m 400 250 100,000 0 100,000 35 35,000 135,000 Nominal AllowanceFurniture etc. Linemark/Painting/RPMs item 1 400,000 400,000 0 400,000 35 140,000 540,000 Allowance onlyFurniture etc. Signposting item 1 200,000 200,000 0 200,000 35 70,000 270,000 Allowance onlyFurniture etc. Traffic Signals (Ocean Drive) item 1 400,000 400,000 0 400,000 35 140,000 540,000Furniture etc. Street Lighting item 1 300,000 300,000 0 300,000 35 105,000 405,000 Allowance onlyFurniture etc. SUBTOTALS 2,960,000 0 2,960,000 35 1,036,000 3,996,000

SUBTOTALS FOR BASE INFRASTRUCTURE 70,980,000 0 70,980,000 35 24,885,500 95,865,500

5(b) Environmental WorksLandscaping item 1 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 35 700,000 2,700,000 Allowance only

SUBTOTALS 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 35 700,000 2,700,000Temp. Erosion & Sed. Control item 1 600,000 600,000 0 600,000 35 210,000 810,000 Allowance onlyPermanent Sed. Basins ea 8 150,000 1,200,000 0 1,200,000 35 420,000 1,620,000Water Quality/Spillage Ponds ea 14 30,000 420,000 0 420,000 35 147,000 567,000

SUBTOTALS 2,220,000 0 2,220,000 35 777,000 2,997,000Fauna Crossings, Fencing, etc. item 1 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 35 350,000 1,350,000 Allowance incl. 5km fence

SUBTOTALS 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 35 350,000 1,350,000Noise attenuation m2 10,000 350 3,500,000 0 3,500,000 35 1,225,000 4,725,000 Johns River & Kew

SUBTOTALS 3,500,000 0 3,500,000 35 1,225,000 4,725,000Compensatory Habitat item 1 500,000 500,000 0 500,000 35 175,000 675,000 Allowance only

SUBTOTALS 500,000 0 500,000 35 175,000 675,000Environmental Monitoring item 1 500,000 500,000 0 500,000 35 175,000 675,000 Allowance only

SUBTOTALS 500,000 0 500,000 35 175,000 675,000Other Agency Costs item 1 50,000 50,000 0 50,000 35 17,500 67,500 Allowance only

SUBTOTALS 50,000 0 50,000 35 17,500 67,500SUBTOTALS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL WORKS 9,770,000 0 9,770,000 35 3,419,500 13,189,500

5(c) General ActivitiesSite Establishment & Overheads item 1 750,000 750,000 0 750,000 40 300,000 1,050,000 Allowance only

SUBTOTALS 750,000 0 750,000 40 300,000 1,050,000Property Adjustments properties 65 10,000 650,000 0 650,000 35 227,500 877,500Demolition/relocation houses 5 10,000 50,000 0 50,000 35 17,500 67,500Fencing m 5,000 15 75,000 0 75,000 35 26,250 101,250

SUBTOTALS 775,000 0 775,000 35 271,250 1,046,250Temp Traffic Works m2 4,500 70 315,000 0 315,000 75 236,250 551,250 Allowance onlyTraffic Guidance item 1 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 40 800,000 2,800,000 Allowance onlyRoad Occupancy Charges item 1 350,000 350,000 0 350,000 50 175,000 525,000 Allowance only

SUBTOTALS 2,665,000 0 2,665,000 45 1,211,250 3,876,250SUBTOTALS FOR GENERAL ACTIVITIES 4,190,000 0 4,190,000 43 1,782,500 5,972,500

Construction Management etc.5(d) Site Surveillance item 1 5,000,000 5,000,000 10 500,000 5,500,000 25 1,375,000 6,875,000 200 weeks @ $25,0005(d) Project Management item 1 1,200,000 1,200,000 10 120,000 1,320,000 25 330,000 1,650,000 240 weeks @ $5,0005(d) SUBTOTALS 6,200,000 620,000 6,820,000 25 1,705,000 8,525,0005(e) Client Representation item 1 120,000 120,000 10 12,000 132,000 25 33,000 165,000

SUBTOTALS FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ETC. 6,320,000 632,000 6,952,000 25 1,738,000 8,690,000TOTALS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION 91,260,000 632,000 91,892,000 35 31,825,500 123,717,500

6. PROJECT HANDOVER6(a) Refurbish old route item 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0(6b) Operation/Mtce Mgt Plan item 1 20,000 20,000 0 20,000 40 8,000 28,000

Project Data & Performance item 1 40,000 40,000 0 40,000 40 16,000 56,000SUBTOTALS 60,000 0 60,000 40 24,000 84,000

6(c) Project Management item 1 20,000 20,000 10 2,000 22,000 25 5,500 27,5006(d) Client Representation item 1 10,000 10,000 10 1,000 11,000 25 2,750 13,750

TOTALS FOR PROJECT HANDOVER 90,000 3,000 93,000 35 32,250 125,250Unit rate ($/km):

GRAND TOTALS 105,941,250 1,547,625 107,488,875 37 39,535,469 147,024,344 6,713,440 (21.9km long)

Project Management Costs: 10,035,850 NOTES:% of Total Estimate: 6.83 1. Quantities are strategic only.Client Representation Costs: 458,150 2. Road pavement assumed as 150mm 5MPa subbase + 200mm dense grade asphalt base.% of Total Estimate: 0.31 3. CC is the Corporate Contribution, set at 10%.

4. Earthworks balance will be rationalised during concept development.

MHSEPMO4.XLS - Est. Subsidiary Sht-A 24/04/2001

ESTIMATE SUMMARY SHEET - ESTIMATE BProject:Project No. 66300 Date: February 2001 Estimate Type: Strategic (Mid Range Cost Scenario)

% of Total Cost

% Amount $000's


Sub Total 6,155 26 1,621 7,776 4.64


Sub Total 3,003 30 901 3,904 2.33


Sub Total 4,394 90 3,933 9,787 5.84


Sub Total 1,805 98 1,770 3,575 2.13



Sub Total 104,365 35 36,186 140,550 83.93

6. Handover6(a) Refurbish Old Route 1,250 40 500 1,750 6(b) Project data and performance 60 40 24 84 6(c) Project Management Services 22 25 6 28 6(d) Client Representation 11 25 3 14

Sub Total 1,343 40 532 1,875 1.12

TOTAL 121,064 37 44,944 167,467




ItemEstimate


Contingency % Contingency Amount

Estimate (including

contingency)Infrastructure5(a) Base Infrastruture- Earthworks 15,755 36 5,595 21,350 - Drainage 6,600 35 2,310 8,910 - Pavements 39,325 35 13,764 53,089 - Structures 17,200 35 6,020 23,220 - Furniture/signs/delineation/fencing 3,120 35 1,092 4,212

Sub Total 82,000 35 28,780 110,780 5(b) Environmental Works- Landscaping 2,000 35 700 2,700 - Erosion and sed control inc wetlands 2,900 35 1,015 3,915 - Fauna crossings/protection 1,000 35 350 1,350 - Noise attenuation 4,200 35 1,470 5,670 - Compensatory Habitat 500 35 175 675 -Environmental Monitoring 500 35 175 675 -Other Agency Costs 50 35 18 68

Sub Total 11,150 35 3,903 15,053 5(c) General Activities- Site establishment & overheads 750 40 300 1,050 - Property adjustments / fencing 1,018 35 356 1,374 - Traffic Management 2,495 44 1,109 3,604

Sub Total 4,263 41 1,765 6,027 TOTAL 97,413 35 34,448 131,860






Locations of major plant known.

MOORLAND to HERONS CK. - Inner West Bypass at Johns River & Inner West Bypass at Kew

ItemEstimate $000's



contingency)Comments


Approx 5km of existing highway route to become under the control of Council. Assume major rehab prior to handover. (Includes local service roads, various consolidated access points, etc.)

Assumes high percentage of existing corridor used and only major acquisitions are for deviations around the townships of Johns River and Kew. Major impacts on the Camden Haven Golf Course (East).

MHSEPMO4.XLS - Est. Summary Sht-B Page 1 24/04/2001

Reality Checks

Cost $M/km 7.61





SUPPORTING ASSUMPTIONS - Estimate B - Inner West Bypasses at Johns River & KewLength (km/m) Width m Quantity (m2/m3) $Rate

Length km 22.0Lane km 99Typical Cross Section: Travel Lane 3.5 4 Turning/Auxillary Lanes 3.0/3.5 various Central Median 11 1 Outer Shoulder 2.5 2 Inner Shoulder 0.5 2Interchanges: Kew (1 ea) 3km 3.5 10,000 90Major Intersections: 6 of @ 700m extra lanes @ 3.5m 4km 3.5 15,000 90Local Road/ Service Rds: Various locations, assume 2km 10 15,000 65Major Structures (based on existing lengths, duplicate for new carriageway): Johns River Township (Unnamed) 10 21 210 Stewarts River Road Overbridges 30 21 630 Unnamed Ck 6 21 126 Stewarts River 230 10.5 2,415 Passionfruit Ck 10 10.5 105 Stoney Ck 15 21 315 Unnamed Ck 10 10.5 105 Rossglen Rail Overbridge 45 10.5 473 Camden Haven River 165 10.5 1,733 Camden Haven Floodplain 25 21 525 Kew Interchange Overbridges 35 21 735 Walkers Ck 10 10.5 105 Herons Ck Flood Channel 33 10.5 347 Herons Ck Bridge 35 21 735

Total 659 8,558 2,000Main Pavements: New Carriageway 325,000 90 Overlay Existing 155,000 65Earthworks: Cut 1,000,000 10 Fill 400,000 10 Select Fill 150,000 25Drainage other than major structures: 22.0km 300,000





Acquisition:

Utilities:

Earthworks:

Drainage:

Pavement:

Structures:


Noise Attenuation:




Represents 2.3% of total project cost. Majority of design will be relatively simple duplication within existing highway corridor. Detailed issues will need to be addressed for the township bypasses of Johns River and Kew. A small allowance is included for “fine tuning” of the geotechnical investigations already completed during the Option Investigation and the Design Development Phase.

With the exception of the Johns River & Kew bypass sections, the project estimate is based on retaining the existing highway as one carriageway and constructing a new carriageway beside the existing.

There will be impacts on properties along the existing corridor and some major acquisitions may be required for new rural corridors (approx. 5km) for the bypasses of Johns River and Kew. Allowance has been made for major impacts on the eastern part of the Camden Haven Golf Course.


Quantities adopted on the basis that provisions will likely be required at Johns River and Kew. Amount reflects the proximety of the proposed bypass routes to potentially impacted areas.


Assumed 150mm concrete/200mm Asphalt. Conservative assumption to overlay existing carriageway with 200mm Asphalt.


Minimal provisions assumed. Likely fauna movements are between Nation Park areas where the existing road corridor is used.

Quantity based on 1999/2000 RTA Operation Strategic Concept work and some preliminary route investigation by OVE ARUP. Rate reflects generally easy work without major traffic issues.

MHSEPMO4.XLS - Est. Summary Sht-B Page 2 24/04/2001

ESTIMATE SUBSIDIARY SHEET - ESTIMATE B SH10 - MOORLAND TO HERONS CREEK STRATEGIC CONCEPT ESTIMATE (LIKELY MID RANGE COST CASE)

JOHNS RIVER INNER WEST BYPASS OPTION (J - B) & KEW INNER WEST BYPASS OPTION (K - C)


ESTIMATE EXCLUDING


ESTIMATE INCLUDING

CONTINGENCYCOMMENTS


1(a) Strategic Concept Development item 1 300,000 300,000 10 30,000 330,000 0 0 330,000 RTA Operations1(a) Survey/Photogrammetry item 1 200,000 200,000 10 20,000 220,000 25 55,000 275,000 These elements1(a) Route Options/Selection item 1 500,000 500,000 10 50,000 550,000 25 137,500 687,500 make up ARUP1(a) Preliminary Engineering Design item 1 500,000 500,000 10 50,000 550,000 25 137,500 687,500 services plus 1(a) EIS/Community item 1 1,000,000 1,000,000 10 100,000 1,100,000 30 330,000 1,430,000 detailed Geotech1(a) Geotechnical Inv.- Prelim. & Det. item 1 2,000,000 2,000,000 10 200,000 2,200,000 30 660,000 2,860,000 contract.1(a) RTA Input including Rep's Report item 1 500,000 500,000 10 50,000 550,000 25 137,500 687,5001(a) Other Agencies item 1 75,000 75,000 10 7,500 82,500 25 20,625 103,1251(a) SUBTOTALS 5,075,000 507,500 5,582,500 26 1,478,125 7,060,6251(b) Project Management item 1 420,000 420,000 10 42,000 462,000 25 115,500 577,5001(c) Client Representation item 1 100,000 100,000 10 10,000 110,000 25 27,500 137,500




3. PROPERTY ACQUISITION3(a) Residential Land/Houses item 1 2,500,000 2,500,000 0 2,500,000 100 2,500,000 5,000,000 Blocks < 1500m23(a) Rural Land Ha 23 20,000 460,000 0 460,000 100 460,000 920,0003(a) Commercial Land m2 0 0 0 0 0 03(a) Golf Course Effects item 1 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 50 500,000 1,500,0003(a) SUBTOTALS 3,960,000 0 3,960,000 87 3,460,000 7,420,0003(b) Acquisition Survey item 1 150,000 150,000 10 15,000 165,000 25 41,250 206,2503(b) Plans and Registrations properties 86 1,000 86,000 10 8,600 94,600 25 23,650 118,2503(b) Technical Input properties 86 500 43,000 10 4,300 47,300 25 11,825 59,1253(b) Valuations properties 86 1,000 86,000 0 86,000 25 21,500 107,5003(b) Property Negotiations properties 86 3,750 322,500 10 32,250 354,750 25 88,688 443,4383(b) Legals & Fees properties 86 10,000 860,000 0 860,000 25 215,000 1,075,0003(b) SUBTOTALS 1,547,500 60,150 1,607,650 25 401,913 2,009,5633(c) Project Management item 1 250,000 250,000 10 25,000 275,000 25 68,750 343,7503(d) Client Representation item 1 10,000 10,000 10 1,000 11,000 25 2,750 13,750


4. PUBLIC UTILITY ADJUSTMENTS4(a) Sewer item 1 100,000 100,000 0 100,000 100 100,000 200,0004(a) Water - Various dia. m 3,500 100 350,000 0 350,000 100 350,000 700,0004(a) Gas item 0 0 0 0 0 04(a) Electricity (crossings) ea 10 30,000 300,000 0 300,000 100 300,000 600,0004(a) Telstra item 1 350,000 350,000 0 350,000 100 350,000 700,0004(a) Optus item 1 650,000 650,000 0 650,000 100 650,000 1,300,0004(a) SUBTOTALS 1,750,000 0 1,750,000 100 1,750,000 3,500,0004(b) Project Management item 1 40,000 40,000 10 4,000 44,000 40 17,600 61,6004(c) Client Representation item 1 10,000 10,000 10 1,000 11,000 25 2,750 13,750



5(a)Base InfrastructureEarthworks Clearing Ha 33 5,000 165,000 0 165,000 40 66,000 231,000Earthworks Strip Topsoil m3 54,000 10 540,000 0 540,000 40 216,000 756,000 200mm allowedEarthworks Cut to Spoil m3 540,000 10 5,400,000 0 5,400,000 35 1,890,000 7,290,000Earthworks Unsuitable m3 60,000 15 900,000 0 900,000 40 360,000 1,260,000Earthworks Cut to Fill m3 400,000 10 4,000,000 0 4,000,000 35 1,400,000 5,400,000Earthworks Select Fill m3 150,000 25 3,750,000 0 3,750,000 35 1,312,500 5,062,500 500mm layer allowedEarthworks Reinforced Soil walls item 1 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 35 350,000 1,350,000 Adjacent RailwayEarthworks SUBTOTALS 15,755,000 0 15,755,000 36 5,594,500 21,349,500Drainage General drainage km 22.0 300,000 6,600,000 0 6,600,000 35 2,310,000 8,910,000 Includes culverts,

pits,subsoils, K&G, GPTs.Drainage SUBTOTALS 6,600,000 0 6,600,000 35 2,310,000 8,910,000Pavements Pavement m2 325,000 90 29,250,000 0 29,250,000 35 10,237,500 39,487,500 Refer Note 2Pavements Asphalt Overlay (200mm) m2 155,000 65 10,075,000 0 10,075,000 35 3,526,250 13,601,250 Overlay existingPavements SUBTOTALS 39,325,000 0 39,325,000 35 13,763,750 53,088,750Structures Bridges & Major Structures (11) m2 8,600 2,000 17,200,000 0 17,200,000 35 6,020,000 23,220,000Structures SUBTOTALS 17,200,000 0 17,200,000 35 6,020,000 23,220,000Furniture etc. Barriers - g'rail/wire rope m 16,000 120 1,920,000 0 1,920,000 35 672,000 2,592,000Furniture etc. Type F barrier/Parapet m 600 250 150,000 0 150,000 35 52,500 202,500 Nominal AllowanceFurniture etc. Linemark/Painting/RPMs item 1 400,000 400,000 0 400,000 35 140,000 540,000 Allowance onlyFurniture etc. Signposting item 1 300,000 300,000 0 300,000 35 105,000 405,000 Allowance onlyFurniture etc. Street Lighting item 1 350,000 350,000 0 350,000 35 122,500 472,500 Allowance onlyFurniture etc. SUBTOTALS 3,120,000 0 3,120,000 35 1,092,000 4,212,000



SUBTOTALS 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 35 700,000 2,700,000Temp. Erosion & Sed. Control item 1 650,000 650,000 0 650,000 35 227,500 877,500 Allowance onlyPermanent Sed. Basins ea 12 150,000 1,800,000 0 1,800,000 35 630,000 2,430,000Water Quality/Spillage Ponds ea 15 30,000 450,000 0 450,000 35 157,500 607,500

SUBTOTALS 2,900,000 0 2,900,000 35 1,015,000 3,915,000Fauna Crossings, Fencing, etc. item 1 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 35 350,000 1,350,000 Allowance incl. 5km fence







SUBTOTALS 750,000 0 750,000 40 300,000 1,050,000Property Adjustments properties 73 10,000 730,000 0 730,000 35 255,500 985,500Demolition/relocation houses 10 10,000 100,000 0 100,000 35 35,000 135,000Fencing m 12,500 15 187,500 0 187,500 35 65,625 253,125

SUBTOTALS 1,017,500 0 1,017,500 35 356,125 1,373,625Temp Traffic Works m2 3,500 70 245,000 0 245,000 75 183,750 428,750 Allowance onlyTraffic Guidance item 1 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 40 800,000 2,800,000 Allowance onlyRoad Occupancy Charges item 1 250,000 250,000 0 250,000 50 125,000 375,000 Allowance only




6. PROJECT HANDOVER6(a) Refurbish old route item 1 1,250,000 1,250,000 0 1,250,000 40 500,000 1,750,000(6b) Operation/Mtce Mgt Plan item 1 20,000 20,000 0 20,000 40 8,000 28,000



TOTALS FOR PROJECT HANDOVER 1,340,000 3,000 1,343,000 40 532,250 1,875,250Unit rate ($/km):




MHSEPMO4.XLS - Est. Subsidiary Sht-B 24/04/2001

ESTIMATE SUMMARY SHEET - ESTIMATE CProject:Project No. 66300 Date: February 2001 Estimate Type: Strategic (Highest Cost Scenario)

% of Total Cost

% Amount $000's


Sub Total 6,155 26 1,621 7,776 4.40


Sub Total 3,003 30 901 3,904 2.21


Sub Total 7,011 71 5,003 12,014 6.80


Sub Total 1,075 97 1,040 2,115 1.20



Sub Total 110,157 35 38,214 148,371 83.94 6. Handover6(a) Refurbish Old Route 1,750 40 700 2,450 6(b) Project data and performance 60 40 24 84 6(c) Project Management Services 22 25 6 28 6(d) Client Representation 11 25 3 14

Sub Total 1,843 40 732 2,575 1.46

TOTAL 129,244 37 47,511 176,754




ItemEstimate (excluding

contingency)Contgy % Contingency Amount

Estimate (including

contingency)Infrastructure5(a) Base Infrastruture- Earthworks 16,960 36 6,035 22,995 - Drainage 6,750 35 2,363 9,113 - Pavements 41,300 35 14,455 55,755 - Structures 18,500 35 6,475 24,975 - Furniture/signs/delineation/fencing 3,435 35 1,202 4,637

Sub Total 86,945 35 30,530 117,475 5(b) Environmental Works- Landscaping 2,000 35 700 2,700 - Erosion and sed control inc wetlands 3,600 35 1,260 4,860 - Fauna crossings/protection 1,000 35 350 1,350 - Noise attenuation 4,200 35 1,470 5,670 - Compensatory Habitat 500 35 175 675 -Environmental Monitoring 500 35 175 675 -Other Agency Costs 50 35 18 68

Sub Total 11,850 35 4,148 15,998 5(c) General Activities- Site establishment & overheads 750 40 300 1,050 - Property adjustments / fencing 1,230 35 431 1,661 - Traffic Management 2,430 44 1,068 3,498

Sub Total 4,410 41 1,798 6,208 TOTAL 103,205 35 36,476 139,681





MOORLAND to HERONS CK. - Inner East Bypass at Johns River & Outer West Bypass at Kew

CommentsItemEstimate $000's



contingency)


Locations of major plant known.

Approx 6.5km of existing highway route to become under the control of Council. Assume major rehab prior to handover. (Includes local service roads, various consolidated access points, etc.)


Assumes high percentage of existing corridor used and only major acquisitions are for deviations around the townships of Johns River and Kew. Major impacts on the Camden Haven Golf Course (West).

MHSEPMO4.XLS - Est. Summary Sht-C Page 1 24/04/2001

Reality Checks

Cost $M/km 7.86





SUPPORTING ASSUMPTIONS - Estimate C - Inner East Bypass Johns River & Outer West KewLength (km/m) Width m Quantity (m2/m3) $Rate

Length km 22.5Lane km 101Typical Cross Section: Travel Lane 3.5 4 Turning/Auxillary Lanes 3.0/3.5 various Central Median 11 1 Outer Shoulder 2.5 2 Inner Shoulder 0.5 2Interchanges: Kew (1 ea) 3km 3.5 10,000 90Major Intersections: 6 of @ 700m extra lanes @ 3.5m 4km 3.5 15,000 90Local Road/ Service Rds: Various locations, assume 2km 10 15,000 65Major Structures (based on existing lengths, duplicate for new carriageway): Station St, Johns River (Unnamed Ck) 10 21 210 Thomas St, Johns River Overbridges 20 21 420 Johns River Nth (Unnamed Ck) 12 21 252 Stewarts River 230 10.5 2,415 Passionfruit Ck 10 10.5 105 Stoney Ck 15 21 315 Unnamed Ck 10 10.5 105 Rossglen Rail Overbridge 45 10.5 473 Camden Haven River 165 10.5 1,733 Camden Haven Floodplain 25 21 525 Kew Sth (Unnamed Ck) 10 21 210 Kew Interchange Overbridges 35 21 735 Kendall Road, Nth (Unnamed Ck) 15 21 315 Herons Ck Road Sth (Unnamed Ck) 10 21 210 Walkers Ck 10 10.5 105 Herons Ck Flood Channel 33 10.5 347 Herons Ck Bridge 35 21 735

Total 690 9,209 2,000Main Pavements: New Carriageway 365,000 90 Overlay Existing 130,000 65Earthworks: Cut 1,050,000 10 Fill 890,000 10 Select Fill 165,000 25Drainage other than major structures: 22.5km 300,000





Acquisition:

Utilities:

Earthworks:

Drainage:

Pavement:

Structures:


Noise Attenuation:

There will be impacts on properties along the existing corridor and some major acquisitions may be required for new rural corridors (approx. 6.5km) for the bypasses of Johns River and Kew. Allowance has been made for a significant number of Residential/Urban impacts within Johns River and for major impacts on the western part of the Camden Haven Golf Course.


Quantity based on 1999/2000 RTA Operation Strategic Concept work and some preliminary route investigation by OVE ARUP. Rate reflects generally easy work without major traffic issues. This option is considered to be the longest practical western bypass route around Kew.


Quantities adopted on the basis that provisions will likely be required at Johns River and Kew. Amount reflects the proximety of the proposed bypass routes to potentially impacted areas.



Represents 2.1% of total project cost. Majority of design will be relatively simple duplication within existing highway corridor. Detailed issues will need to be addressed for the township bypasses of Johns River and Kew. A small allowance is included for “fine tuning” of the geotechnical investigations already completed during the Option Investigation and the Design Development Phase.

With the exception of the Johns River & Kew bypass sections, the project estimate is based on retaining the existing highway as one carriageway and constructing a new carriageway beside the existing.


Assumed 150mm concrete/200mm Asphalt. Conservative assumption to overlay existing carriageway with 200mm Asphalt.


Minimal provisions assumed. Likely fauna movements are between Nation Park areas where the existing road corridor is used.

MHSEPMO4.XLS - Est. Summary Sht-C Page 2 24/04/2001

ESTIMATE SUBSIDIARY SHEET - ESTIMATE C SH10 - MOORLAND TO HERONS CREEK STRATEGIC CONCEPT ESTIMATE (LIKELY HIGHEST COST CASE )

JOHNS RIVER BYPASS INNER EAST OPTION (J - D) & KEW BYPASS OUTER WEST OPTION (K - A)


ESTIMATE EXCLUDING


ESTIMATE INCLUDING

CONTINGENCYCOMMENTS


1(a) Strategic Concept Development item 1 300,000 300,000 10 30,000 330,000 0 0 330,000 RTA Operations1(a) Survey/Photogrammetry item 1 200,000 200,000 10 20,000 220,000 25 55,000 275,000 These elements1(a) Route Options/Selection item 1 500,000 500,000 10 50,000 550,000 25 137,500 687,500 make up ARUP1(a) Preliminary Engineering Design item 1 500,000 500,000 10 50,000 550,000 25 137,500 687,500 services plus the1(a) EIS/Community item 1 1,000,000 1,000,000 10 100,000 1,100,000 30 330,000 1,430,000 detailed Geotech1(a) Geotechnical Inv.- Prelim. & Det. item 1 2,000,000 2,000,000 10 200,000 2,200,000 30 660,000 2,860,000 contract.1(a) RTA Input including Rep's Report item 1 500,000 500,000 10 50,000 550,000 25 137,500 687,5001(a) Other Agencies item 1 75,000 75,000 10 7,500 82,500 25 20,625 103,1251(a) SUBTOTALS 5,075,000 507,500 5,582,500 26 1,478,125 7,060,6251(b) Project Management item 1 420,000 420,000 10 42,000 462,000 25 115,500 577,5001(c) Client Representation item 1 100,000 100,000 10 10,000 110,000 25 27,500 137,500




3. PROPERTY ACQUISITION3(a) Residential Land/Houses item 1 3,000,000 3,000,000 0 3,000,000 100 3,000,000 6,000,000 Blocks < 1500m23(a) Rural Land Ha 50 20,000 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 100 1,000,000 2,000,0003(a) Commercial Land m2 0 0 0 0 0 03(a) Golf Course Effects item 1 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 50 500,000 1,500,0003(a) SUBTOTALS 5,000,000 0 5,000,000 90 4,500,000 9,500,0003(b) Acquisition Survey item 1 150,000 150,000 10 15,000 165,000 25 41,250 206,2503(b) Plans and Registrations properties 93 1,000 93,000 10 9,300 102,300 25 25,575 127,8753(b) Technical Input properties 93 500 46,500 10 4,650 51,150 25 12,788 63,9383(b) Valuations properties 93 1,000 93,000 0 93,000 25 23,250 116,2503(b) Property Negotiations properties 93 3,750 348,750 10 34,875 383,625 25 95,906 479,5313(b) Legals & Fees properties 93 10,000 930,000 0 930,000 25 232,500 1,162,5003(b) SUBTOTALS 1,661,250 63,825 1,725,075 25 431,269 2,156,3443(c) Project Management item 1 250,000 250,000 10 25,000 275,000 25 68,750 343,7503(d) Client Representation item 1 10,000 10,000 10 1,000 11,000 25 2,750 13,750


4. PUBLIC UTILITY ADJUSTMENTS4(a) Sewer item 1 20,000 20,000 0 20,000 100 20,000 40,0004(a) Water - Various dia. m 3,000 100 300,000 0 300,000 100 300,000 600,0004(a) Gas item 0 0 0 0 0 04(a) Electricity (crossings) ea 10 30,000 300,000 0 300,000 100 300,000 600,0004(a) Telstra item 1 200,000 200,000 0 200,000 100 200,000 400,0004(a) Optus item 1 200,000 200,000 0 200,000 100 200,000 400,0004(a) SUBTOTALS 1,020,000 0 1,020,000 100 1,020,000 2,040,0004(b) Project Management item 1 40,000 40,000 10 4,000 44,000 40 17,600 61,6004(c) Client Representation item 1 10,000 10,000 10 1,000 11,000 25 2,750 13,750



5(a)Base InfrastructureEarthworks Clearing Ha 52 5,000 260,000 0 260,000 40 104,000 364,000Earthworks Strip Topsoil m3 75,000 10 750,000 0 750,000 40 300,000 1,050,000 200mm allowedEarthworks Cut to Spoil m3 95,000 10 950,000 0 950,000 35 332,500 1,282,500Earthworks Unsuitable m3 65,000 15 975,000 0 975,000 40 390,000 1,365,000Earthworks Cut to Fill m3 890,000 10 8,900,000 0 8,900,000 35 3,115,000 12,015,000Earthworks Select Fill m3 165,000 25 4,125,000 0 4,125,000 35 1,443,750 5,568,750 500mm layer allowedEarthworks Reinforced Soil walls item 1 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 35 350,000 1,350,000 Adjacent RailwayEarthworks SUBTOTALS 16,960,000 0 16,960,000 36 6,035,250 22,995,250Drainage General drainage km 22.5 300,000 6,750,000 0 6,750,000 35 2,362,500 9,112,500 Includes culverts,

pits,subsoils, K&G, GPTs.Drainage SUBTOTALS 6,750,000 0 6,750,000 35 2,362,500 9,112,500Pavements Pavement m2 365,000 90 32,850,000 0 32,850,000 35 11,497,500 44,347,500 Refer Note 2Pavements Asphalt Overlay (200mm) m2 130,000 65 8,450,000 0 8,450,000 35 2,957,500 11,407,500 Overlay existingPavements SUBTOTALS 41,300,000 0 41,300,000 35 14,455,000 55,755,000Structures Bridges & Major Structures (11) m2 9,250 2,000 18,500,000 0 18,500,000 35 6,475,000 24,975,000Structures SUBTOTALS 18,500,000 0 18,500,000 35 6,475,000 24,975,000Furniture etc. Barriers - g'rail/wire rope m 18,000 120 2,160,000 0 2,160,000 35 756,000 2,916,000Furniture etc. Type F barrier/Parapet m 700 250 175,000 0 175,000 35 61,250 236,250 Nominal AllowanceFurniture etc. Linemark/Painting/RPMs item 1 400,000 400,000 0 400,000 35 140,000 540,000 Allowance onlyFurniture etc. Signposting item 1 350,000 350,000 0 350,000 35 122,500 472,500 Allowance onlyFurniture etc. Street Lighting item 1 350,000 350,000 0 350,000 35 122,500 472,500 Allowance onlyFurniture etc. SUBTOTALS 3,435,000 0 3,435,000 35 1,202,250 4,637,250



SUBTOTALS 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 35 700,000 2,700,000Temp. Erosion & Sed. Control item 1 750,000 750,000 0 750,000 35 262,500 1,012,500 Allowance onlyPermanent Sed. Basins ea 16 150,000 2,400,000 0 2,400,000 35 840,000 3,240,000Water Quality/Spillage Ponds ea 15 30,000 450,000 0 450,000 35 157,500 607,500

SUBTOTALS 3,600,000 0 3,600,000 35 1,260,000 4,860,000Fauna Crossings, Fencing, etc. item 1 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 35 350,000 1,350,000 Allowance incl. 5km fence







SUBTOTALS 750,000 0 750,000 40 300,000 1,050,000Property Adjustments properties 83 10,000 830,000 0 830,000 35 290,500 1,120,500Demolition/relocation houses 16 10,000 160,000 0 160,000 35 56,000 216,000Fencing m 16,000 15 240,000 0 240,000 35 84,000 324,000

SUBTOTALS 1,230,000 0 1,230,000 35 430,500 1,660,500Temp Traffic Works m2 3,000 70 210,000 0 210,000 75 157,500 367,500 Allowance onlyTraffic Guidance item 1 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 40 800,000 2,800,000 Allowance onlyRoad Occupancy Charges item 1 220,000 220,000 0 220,000 50 110,000 330,000 Allowance only




6. PROJECT HANDOVER6(a) Refurbish old route item 1 1,750,000 1,750,000 0 1,750,000 40 700,000 2,450,000(6b) Operation/Mtce Mgt Plan item 1 20,000 20,000 0 20,000 40 8,000 28,000



TOTALS FOR PROJECT HANDOVER 1,840,000 3,000 1,843,000 40 732,250 2,575,250Unit rate ($/km):




MHSEPMO4.XLS - Est. Subsidiary Sheet-C 24/04/2001


Attachment D

Attachment D - 1:25,000 Scale Topographical Maps.

Estimate A – (Lowest Cost $150M.) - Upgrade existing highway corridor through Johns River and Kew. Route options (J-C) and (K-D). Total length 21.9km. Estimate B - (Likely Mid Range Cost $170M.) - Upgrade existing highway corridor with an Inner Western Bypass of Johns River and an Inner Western Bypass of Kew. Route options (J-B) and (K-C). Total length 22.0km. Estimate C - (Likely Highest Cost $180M.) - Upgrade existing highway corridor with an Inner Eastern Bypass of Johns River and an Outer Western Bypass of Kew. Route options (J-D) and (K-A). Total length 22.5km.


Attachment E

Attachment E – Summary of Environmental Issues.

Extract from the RTA Operations Strategic Concept Design Report.

Attachment E 1

Pacific Highway – Upgrade from Moorland to Herons Creek January 2000 Strategic Concept Design Report (Extract)

MOORLAND TO HERONS CREEK STRATEGIC CONCEPT DESIGN REPORT (EXTRACT)

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Land Use and Accesses

• The highway passes through the townships of Kew and Johns River. The villages of Rossglen and Herons Creek are close to the highway on the western side.

• Land adjacent to the highway has a variety of uses including grazing, National Park, State Forest, North Coast railway and SEPP 14 wetlands. Within the towns there are residential properties, motels, shops, service stations and a hotel.

• The terrain is generally undulating. The highway skirts the foothills of the Brother Mountains and crosses the flood plains of the Stewarts and Camden Haven Rivers.

• Depending on the Preferred Route adopted, a number of properties would be affected by strip acquisition and a number of houses at Johns River would require demolition or relocation. Consideration of the possibility of the highway being deviated further to the west of Johns River would require the need to address the impact of such a deviation on the future development west of Johns River, as proposed by Greater Taree City Council.

• Ongoing consultation will be required with Taree and Hastings Councils regarding the project and, specifically, proposed developments that might impact on, or be impacted by, the project.

• Controlled access conditions along the upgraded highway will be critical to ensuring its ongoing functionality.

• Direct access to properties (and some side roads) from the opposite carriageway will be denied. In such cases access will be restricted to left turn in / left turn out. Provision for U-turns will be made at appropriate facilities to be incorporated into the project. Further design development will be required before the impacts of loss of direct access can be fully assessed. This design development will draw on input from the community consultation process.

• Proposals at both Kew and Johns River may impact on the access to and operation of some businesses and private residences.

• Taree City Council operates under a performance-based Local Environmental Plan. Under the LEP, proponents are required to demonstrate that their development is consistent with the LEP aims and objectives. The aims and objectives are structured as follows:

1. LEP aims, 2. general zoning objectives, and 3. specific zone objectives.

Attachment E 2


Flora and Fauna • There are areas on both sides of the highway that are likely to be identified as significant habitat areas. Part of Middle Brother State Forest was gazetted as National Park on 26 February 1999. There is also a large diversity of habitat types, including: wetlands, eucalypt woodland, open forest, casuarina forest, melaleuca forest, agricultural land, riparian vegetation, potential closed forest and wetland areas containing large stands of Juncus sp. There is a large SEPP 14 wetland (Coastal Wetland 544C) east of the highway north of Camden Haven River.

• Acquisition and clearing of some small portions of the Middle Brother State Forest will be required to enable construction of either of the Options developed to date. Further investigation will be required to determine if any of these portions are part of the recently declared Yoorigan National Park.

• The vegetation within the road reserve along the project length is generally of moderate to high value.

• No detailed threatened flora and fauna studies have been undertaken and the National Parks and Wildlife Service has not yet been consulted. Appropriate studies should be commissioned at the earliest possible time to give an indication of potential issues.

• There are a number of potential fauna corridors crossing the highway. The impact of the upgrade on these links and the provision of appropriate means to manage and mitigate the impacts will need to be the subject of detailed studies.

• In order to reduce potential adverse impacts on fauna movements, consideration will need to be given to the type of safety barriers to be adopted in the design. If solid barriers are to be adopted to assist in minimising the highway footprint, gaps may be able to be provided.

• There may be threatened fish in the rivers, creeks or coastal lakes. Three threatened freshwater fish species have been identified on the North Coast, including Eastern Freshwater Cod, Honey Blue Eye and Oxleyan Pygmy Perch. Early contact should be made with NSW Fisheries to determine issues relating to threatened species under the Fisheries Management Amendment Act. An 8 Part Test will be required. The project will need to address other requirements/issues under the Fisheries Management and Fisheries Management Amendment Acts.

• Should the ultimate design for the project require major utility relocations, there may need to be significant additional clearing to cater for the relocated services. Utilities and Services that could potentially be affected include power, water, sewer, telecommunications and rail.

Attachment E 3


Agriculture • The majority of the upgrade may be carried out within the existing

road reserve, so the impact should be low.

• A stand of remnant vegetation exists within the highway road reserve South of Herons Creek. If this stand of remnant vegetation is to be preserved, options which consider a wide median through this area, would also need to take into account the impact on, and acquisition of, additional agricultural land.

Geotechnical Issues

• Construction of embankments over the flood plains will need to be in accordance with best practice for soft soil areas. Widening of existing embankments may have adverse impacts on existing pavements and structures.

• There are existing problems within the length of existing highway under consideration due to failure of culverts through embankments constructed on soft soil. Replacement of failed culverts with small bridges may be a feasible option in conjunction with adjacent highway duplication works.

• There are a number of hard rock cuttings along the existing highway. Widening of these, if required, will necessitate blasting and will require careful planning and execution.

Contaminated Soils

• Contamination due to current or past uses such as cropping, sawmills, cattle tick dip sites, etc will need assessment.

• Mapping from the Department of Land and Water Conservation indicates that there are a number of areas with high or low potential for acid sulphate soils at various locations along the length of the project. Detailed design will need to consider acid sulphate soils. Best practice control measures will need to be put in place during construction.

• SMEC Australia conducted an Acid Sulphate Soils study for Hastings Council in the SEPP14 wetland and surrounding area just north of Camden Haven River. The management plan produced by this study, “Rossglen Acid Sulphate Soils - Land Management Plan”, should be reviewed during development of the engineering concept design for the project.

• Examination of the EPA’s Contaminated Sites Register should be undertaken during the early stages of full project development, and as part of the formulation and assessment of potential route options.

Attachment E 4


Aboriginal Heritage

• There do not appear to be any National Parks and Wildlife Service listed sites directly affected by the strategic concept design. Details of the sites indicated west and east of Kew and in the wetland near Camden Haven River, will need to be obtained and confirmed.

• The Brother Mountains have spiritual significance for local aboriginal groups.

• The area has the potential for scarred trees. The banks of rivers and creeks will need to be carefully examined for middens, campsites, etc. Ridges will also need careful examination. Artefacts are less likely to be found on disturbed areas.

• The project crosses the Local Aboriginal Land Council boundaries. South of Kew falls within the Purfleet-Taree LALC and from Kew to Herons Creek is in the Bunyah LALC area.

• It is recommended that early and ongoing liaison take place with the Land Councils and that aboriginal archaeological surveys be carried out as early as possible in the project life cycle.

European Heritage

• The heritage status of any affected property needs to be confirmed. No heritage properties listed in the Greater Taree Local Environment Plan appear to be affected. Hastings Council advises that the Royal Hotel on the corner of the highway and Ocean Drive in Kew is heritage listed, as is the Police Station on the old highway.

• Consultation with the Heritage Council and other stakeholders will be required.

Waterways and Wetlands

• There are SEPP 14 wetland areas located to the east of the highway around Watson Taylors Lake and on the northern bank of the Camden Haven River (refer to Coastal Wetlands Map in Appendix 1 of this Scope of Work and Technical Criteria).

• The road reserve on the western side of the highway opposite the wetland at Camden Haven River is inundated and appears similar in nature to the wetland opposite. The boundaries of the wetland will need to be checked. If it is to be affected, a Part 4 EIS may be necessary. The Department of Urban Affairs and Planning’s draft policy requires that the RTA justifies the selection of any option and the development of any design element which impacts on SEPP 14 wetland. This will need to be addressed early in development of the engineering concept for the project.

• The highway along the project length is between five and ten kilometres from the coast. The project crosses two rivers and numerous creeks that empty into the ocean via coastal lakes, Watson Taylors Lake or Queens Lake.

• Contact should be made with the EPA to obtain protected/sensitive waters mapping.

Attachment E 5


Erosion and Sedimentation

• There are a number of existing cut batters on the project which have eroded. The soil appears to be dispersive. This and other aspects will require comprehensive consideration as part of the geotechnical investigations to be undertaken in developing the engineering concept design.

• The provision of sediment basins will require careful design and detailing.

Water Quality • Mapping from the Department of Land and Water Conservation indicates that there are a number of areas with high or low potential for acid sulphate soils along the project length. Best practice control measures will need to be put in place during design and construction. The RTA should develop an acid sulphate soils management strategy as part of the project’s development and environmental impact assessment. This would, in turn, provide the basis for the development of an Acid Sulphate Soils Management Plan for the project.

• Watson Taylors Lake is currently being used for prawning and oyster farming, while Queens Lake is being used for oyster farming.

• Base-line water quality monitoring will be required and will need to be commenced as an integral part of project development and environmental impact assessment.

Hydrology & Flooding

• Generally, the project may involve duplication of the existing highway, so impacts should be minimal. The bridge and culvert duplications may be achieved with compatible structures.

• Unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence has been provided that flooding of the existing highway has occurred at Stoney Creek, between Passion Creek and Algona Road and between the turnoff to Herons Creek township and Herons Creek.

• A full hydrological study of the various waterways will be required in conjunction with the engineering concept design.

Visual • This is a scenic section of the Pacific Highway. The upgrade needs to sensitively integrate with the landscape and provide the opportunity for road users to view the natural beauty of the area..

• The inclusion of noise barrier walls or noise attenuation mounds may adversely impact the visual amenity of adjacent residents and/or road users.

• Project development will need to be carried out in consideration of the principles of urban and regional design.

Attachment E 6


Noise • In rural areas, there are only scattered homes along the highway.

There may be additional traffic noise impact on some properties.

• Within the townships, traffic noise is likely to increase over time with increasing traffic volumes.

• A comprehensive base line study will be required with appropriate modelling to predict impacts.

• Under the EPA’s “Environmental Criteria for Road Traffic Noise – May 1999”, the work should be classed as a ‘redevelopment of an existing freeway/arterial road’. The work for a bypass at Johns River or at Kew should be classed as a “new freeway or arterial road corridor”. Liaison will be required with RTA’s ECP Branch and the EPA to confirm this.

• The inclusion of noise barrier walls or noise attenuation mounds may adversely impact the visual amenity of adjacent residents and/or road users.

• Construction noise will need to be controlled by best management practice. Potential mitigation measures for affected locations would be assessed in consultation with the affected residents, the local community as appropriate, and in consideration of cost effectiveness and practicality.

Air Quality • No significant impact expected. • Control of dust during construction will need to be addressed by

best management practice.

LIKELY LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REQUIRED: The appropriate level of Environmental Impact Assessment for this project will require further consideration as the development of the project progresses. However, at this early stage, it is believed that the scope and potential impact of the project is beyond that considered appropriate to be treated by a Review of Environmental Factors. Thus, it is likely that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be required.

Significant issues in making the final decision as to the level of EIA may include:

• Impacts on Kew and Johns River townships;

• Impact on recently declared Yoorigan National Park;

• Water quality and impacts on wetlands and coastal waterways;

• Threatened flora and fauna species (which may require that a Species Impact Statement be compiled);

• Social impact; and

• The overall scale of the project.


Attachment F

Attachment F – Estimate Approval and Acceptance Form.

Estimate Approval signature sheet

Estimate Approval and Acceptance (A) PROJECT: MOORLAND TO HERONS CREEK PROJECT No.: 66300 ROAD No: SH10 LOCATION: 36.6km to 58.5km North of Taree REGION/ OFFICE: Pacific Highway Office ESTIMATE OF COST: $150M to $180M ESTIMATE STATUS: (TYPE) Strategic DATE: February 2001

The estimate for this project has been prepared in accordance with the Scope, Estimating and Cost Control for Development Projects Guidelines. The details of the scope and estimate and proposed program of works are attached. Peer review carried out by: Name: Chris Manser Position: RTA Project Manager I recommend that the estimate be approved in an amount of $150 to $180 Million($2001). ………………………………… R Dallen Project Development Manager Date: The Estimate has been reviewed on the basis of the outlined project scope and other relevant information. I recommend that the project estimate be established as $___________ Million ($2001). (Comments attached)

………………………………… Manager, Project Management Office Date: On the basis of the information provided, concurrence is given to the estimate cost of $___________ Million ($2001).

………………………………… General Manager Project Management Office Date: I concur / approve with the (type) estimate cost of $____________ Million ($2001). Based on construction start in 2_____, and ____%pa rise in cost, the $OT estimate for this project is $___________ Million. I recommend that the Project Budget be established at this amount. ………………………………… Client Services Manager/Branch Manager Date: I approve the (type) estimate cost of $______ Million($OT) and support the Project Budget. ………………………………… Director Client Services Date: I accept the (type) estimate cost of $____________ ($OT) and approve the Project Budget as $_____________ Million.

………………………………… Director Road Network Infrastructure Date:

Preparation of Project Estimate Estimate Review Estimate Concurrence Estimate Approval ($5 M– $50 M) Estimate Concurrence (>$50 Million) Approval not req’d ($5 M– $50 M) Estimate Approval (>$50 Million)


Attachment G

Attachment G – Verification Checklist.

VERIFICATION CHECKLIST Preparation of a Strategic Estimate

PROJECT: MOORLAND TO HERONS CREEK PROJECT No.: 66300 ROAD No: SH10 LOCATION: 36.6km to 58.5km North of Taree REGION/ OFFICE: Pacific Highway Office ESTIMATE OF COST: $150M to $180M ESTIMATE STATUS: (TYPE) Strategic DATE: February 2001

Task/Activity Verification !!!! - Yes x - No N/A

Evidence File Ref/Remark

Process: Geographical limits of the project set? !!!! Draft Project

Development Brief & Request for Proposals

10/196.1594

Number of traffic lanes determined? !!!! -Draft Project Development Brief. -Prelim. Traffic Rpt

-10/196.1594

-10/196.1593 Any intersections or interchanges? !!!! -Draft Project

Development Brief. Preliminary Route Inv.

-10/196.1594

-Arup 10/196.1593 Design cross section provided? !!!! Arup Drawings 80213/S01/SK015 & 17 Pavement life determined? !!!! Request for Proposals 10/196.1594 Number, type and lengths of major structures determined?

!!!! Preliminary Route Inv. Arup 10/196.1593

Key assumptions listed? !!!! RTA Strategic Rpt 97G1305 Known risks listed? !!!! -RTA Strategic Rpt.

-Draft Risk Mgt. Plan -97G1305

-10/196.1593 Information collected on Development, Design, Property Acquisitions, Public Utilities and Construction?

!!!! RTA Strategic Concept Report Feb.

2000

97G1305

Cost data collected? !!!! Ballina Bypass 10/23.1254 Differences between this project and comparable project considered?

!!!! PMO Memo 22/2/01 10/196.1593

Individual project item estimates prepared? !!!! Notes, Peer Rpt., etc 10/196.1593;28 Overall estimate compiled in standard format? !!!! PMO Memo 22/2/01 10/196.1593 Contingency allowances added? !!!! PMO Memo 22/2/01 10/196.1593 Standard Summary Sheet prepared? !!!! PMO Memo 22/2/01 10/196.1593 Check project objectives and scope are acceptable to Client?

!!!! Request for Proposals 10/196.1594

Reality Checks provided? !!!! PMO Memo 22/2/01 10/196.1593 Sign off Checklist? !!!! PMO Memo 22/2/01 10/196.1593 Peer Review undertaken? !!!! Chris Manser 20/2/01 10/196.1593 The above activities have been satisfactorily completed

Signed:............................................................................. Date: .......................................... R. Dallen - Project Development Manager Comments:


Attachment H

Attachment H – Comments on Peer Review.

1

10/196.1593 AJS PACIFIC HIGHWAY. UPGRADE FROM MOORLAND TO HERONS CREEK. STRATEGIC

ESTIMATE. COMMENT ON PEER REVIEW

ESTIMATE DETAILS For the purpose of defining the likely range for the Strategic Project Estimate, three (3) option scenarios have been costed. These three option scenarios have been chosen as they are considered to best represent the likely range of feasible route options that will ultimately be presented to the community. The alignment options for these Strategic Estimates include:

1. Estimate ‘A’ – (Lowest Cost $150M.) - 110km/hour design upgrade along the entire existing highway corridor, with the exception of an 80km/hour design through the townships of Johns River and Kew. Traffic Signals have been allowed at the intersection with Ocean Drive/Kendall Road. Total length 21.9km;

2. Estimate ‘B’ - (Likely Mid Range Cost $170M.) - 110km/hour design upgrade

generally along the existing highway corridor, with an Inner Western Bypass of Johns River and an Inner Western Bypass of Kew. Total length 22.0km; and

3. Estimate ‘C’ - (Likely Highest Cost $180M.) - 110km/hour design upgrade generally

along the existing highway corridor, with an Inner Eastern Bypass of Johns River and an Outer Western Bypass of Kew. Total length 22.5km.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER PROJECTS The estimated cost for this project is low relative to other projects being undertaken under the Pacific Highway Upgrading Program. The following table compares the Upgrade from Moorland to Herons Creek with other Pacific Highway projects.

Project No.

Project Description

Date open

Lane km Total Project Cost ($,000)

Cost / Lane km

($,000)

Comment

66300 Upgrade from Moorland to Herons Creek

na 98 to 101 147,020 to 176,754 1,500 to 1,750 Strategic Estimate

65556 Sapphire to Woolgoolga

na 85 to 100

145,673 to 206,625 1,714 to 2,066 Strategic Estimate

65167 Buladelah Bypass na 32.8 to 39.2 130,057 to 148,456 3,330 to 4,472 Revised Strategic Estimate

68221 Bangalow to St. Helena

na 20.9 65,000 3,100 Concept Estimate

62185 Ballina Bypass na 50.8 198,000 3,900 Revised Concept Estimate.

3893 Lyons Road to Englands Road

na 21.2 58,400 2,755 Under construction. Heavy traffic conditions

66301 Taree to Coopernook na 29.6 53,000 1,791 Concept Estimate.

64706 Coopernook Bypass na 16.8 60,000 3,571 Concept Estimate.

1846 Taree Bypass May-00 58 125,800 2,169 Floodplain and River crossings.

4087 Raymond Terrace Bypass

Dec-98 39.14 77,700 1,985 Greenfields, staging was not ideal due to late decision to duplicate bypass.

66166 Coolongolook to Wang Wauk

na 23.4 49,200 2,103 Under construction. Minimum work on existing carriageway

4521 Wang Wauk to Bundacree Creek

Dec-98 13.9 21,000 1,511

2

Reasons for the relatively low estimated cost for the Upgrade from Moorland to Herons Creek include:

(a) With the exception of the bypass route options which may be required around the townships of Johns River and Kew, the project is expected to retain a large proportion of the existing highway asset. The majority of the proposed highway duplication, is likely to take place primarily along the existing highway corridor.

(b) At this stage, the proposed lengths of the preliminary bypass route options for Johns River and Kew are relatively short given the overall project length. Therefore the project cost rate per km, is generally low with the range of likely estimated costs, being directly attributed to the various Johns River and Kew bypass route option scenarios.

(c) Accessibility for construction plant and provision for existing traffic are expected to be straightforward due to the proximity of the existing highway formation.

COMMENT ON ISSUES RAISED BY CHRIS MANSER - 20 FEBRUARY 2001 1. General a) Project Management rates high – Detailed review carried out with overall percentage generally

much the same, but more realistic distribution. b) Client Representation rates high – Review carried out with overall percentage generally halved. 2. Project Development a) RTA Technical Input including Representation Report – (Costs high)

Revised up to $500,000 from $350,000 based on the following components: • Reps Report preparation 30,000 • Geotechnical input 200hrs @ $150/hr 30,000 • Survey input 100hrs @ $150/hr 15,000 • Property input 100hrs @ $120/hr 12,000 • Environment input (J.O’.D.) 250hrs @ $120/hr 30,000 • Engineering (R.D.) 150wks * 35hrs * 0.333 @ $130/hr 230,000 • Technical (A.J.S.) 150wks * 35hrs * 0.333 @ $85/hr 150,000 • Noise Issues 10,000 TOTAL $507,000

b) RTA Project Management – (Costs high) • 180wks * 35hrs * 0.333 @ $200/hr $420,000

c) RTA Client Representation – (Costs high) • 180wks * 4hrs/wk @ $130/hr $100,000

3. Investigation and Design a) Detailed Design and Documentation – (Costs high)

Costs based on latest tender prices received by RTA Project Services (Low if anything!). See breakup attached.

b) RTA Project Management – (Costs high) • 100wks * 35hrs * 0.5 @ $200/hr $350,000

c) RTA Client Representation – (Costs high) • 100wks * 6hrs/wk @ $130/hr $80,000

3

4. Property Acquisition a) Professional Services - (Costs high). Detailed review carried out with overall percentage

generally much the same, but more realistic distribution into individual components including Legals and Fees.

b) RTA Project Management – (Costs high) • 65 properties @ 25hrs @ $150/hr $250,000

5. Infrastructure Construction a) Earthworks – (Cut and Fill allowed for twice)

Items and Quantities revisited. Earthworks balance will be rationalised during concept development.

b) Permanent Sed. Basins - (Costs high) Rates adopted from latest Ballina Bypass Estimated Costs (PMO approved)

c) Fauna Fencing – Provision in item for 5,000m @ $40/m $200,000

d) RTA Project Management – (Costs high) • 240wks @ $5,000/wk $1,200,000

e) RTA Client Representation – (Costs high) • 240wks * 4hrs/wk @ $130/hr $120,000

CONCLUSION Estimates have been revised to reflect the above issues raised on 20 February 2001. _____________________________ Anthony Smith Senior Project designer 22 February 2001.

• • • •••

A P P E N D I X 5 . 4

CHAPTER 0VERIFICATION CHECKLIST

• • • •••


VERIFICATION CHECKLIST Preparation of a Strategic Estimate

PROJECT: MOORLAND TO HERONS CREEK PROJECT No.: 66300 ROAD No: SH10 LOCATION: 36.6km to 58.5km North of Taree REGION/ OFFICE: Pacific Highway Office ESTIMATE OF COST: $150M to $180M ESTIMATE STATUS: (TYPE) Strategic DATE: February 2001



Process: Geographical limits of the project set? !!!! Draft Project

Development Brief & Request for Proposals

10/196.1594

Number of traffic lanes determined? !!!! -Draft Project Development Brief. -Prelim. Traffic Rpt

-10/196.1594

-10/196.1593 Any intersections or interchanges? !!!! -Draft Project

Development Brief. Preliminary Route Inv.

-10/196.1594

-Arup 10/196.1593 Design cross section provided? !!!! Arup Drawings 80213/S01/SK015 & 17 Pavement life determined? !!!! Request for Proposals 10/196.1594 Number, type and lengths of major structures determined?

!!!! Preliminary Route Inv. Arup 10/196.1593

Key assumptions listed? !!!! RTA Strategic Rpt 97G1305 Known risks listed? !!!! -RTA Strategic Rpt.

-Draft Risk Mgt. Plan -97G1305

-10/196.1593 Information collected on Development, Design, Property Acquisitions, Public Utilities and Construction?

!!!! RTA Strategic Concept Report Feb.

2000

97G1305

Cost data collected? !!!! Ballina Bypass 10/23.1254 Differences between this project and comparable project considered?

!!!! PMO Memo 22/2/01 10/196.1593

Individual project item estimates prepared? !!!! Notes, Peer Rpt., etc 10/196.1593;28 Overall estimate compiled in standard format? !!!! PMO Memo 22/2/01 10/196.1593 Contingency allowances added? !!!! PMO Memo 22/2/01 10/196.1593 Standard Summary Sheet prepared? !!!! PMO Memo 22/2/01 10/196.1593 Check project objectives and scope are acceptable to Client?

!!!! Request for Proposals 10/196.1594

Reality Checks provided? !!!! PMO Memo 22/2/01 10/196.1593 Sign off Checklist? !!!! PMO Memo 22/2/01 10/196.1593 Peer Review undertaken? !!!! Chris Manser 20/2/01 10/196.1593 The above activities have been satisfactorily completed

Signed:............................................................................. Date: .......................................... R. Dallen - Project Development Manager Comments:

• • • •••


• • • •••

A P P E N D I X 5 . 5

CHAPTER 0ESTIMATE APPROVAL ANDACCEPTANCE FORM

• • • •••



Estimate Approval and Acceptance (A) PROJECT: MOORLAND TO HERONS CREEK PROJECT No.: 66300 ROAD No: SH10 LOCATION: 36.6km to 58.5km North of Taree REGION/ OFFICE: Pacific Highway Office ESTIMATE OF COST: $150M to $180M ESTIMATE STATUS: (TYPE) Strategic DATE: February 2001

The estimate for this project has been prepared in accordance with the Scope, Estimating and Cost Control for Development Projects Guidelines. The details of the scope and estimate and proposed program of works are attached. Peer review carried out by: Name: Chris Manser Position: RTA Project Manager I recommend that the estimate be approved in an amount of $150 to $180 Million($2001). ………………………………… R Dallen Project Development Manager Date: The Estimate has been reviewed on the basis of the outlined project scope and other relevant information. I recommend that the project estimate be established as $___________ Million ($2001). (Comments attached)

………………………………… Manager, Project Management Office Date: On the basis of the information provided, concurrence is given to the estimate cost of $___________ Million ($2001).

………………………………… General Manager Project Management Office Date: I concur / approve with the (type) estimate cost of $____________ Million ($2001). Based on construction start in 2_____, and ____%pa rise in cost, the $OT estimate for this project is $___________ Million. I recommend that the Project Budget be established at this amount. ………………………………… Client Services Manager/Branch Manager Date: I approve the (type) estimate cost of $______ Million($OT) and support the Project Budget. ………………………………… Director Client Services Date: I accept the (type) estimate cost of $____________ ($OT) and approve the Project Budget as $_____________ Million.


Preparation of Project Estimate Estimate Review Estimate Concurrence Estimate Approval ($5 M– $50 M) Estimate Concurrence (>$50 Million) Approval not req’d ($5 M– $50 M) Estimate Approval (>$50 Million)

• • • •••


RTA Project Estimating Concept Estimate 6 - 1Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

• • • •••

C H A P T E R 6CHAPTER 0CONCEPT ESTIMATE

6.1 Summary

This chapter sets down the process for preparation of a ConceptEstimate.

6.2 Overview

There are 3 key stages to the preparation of a Concept Estimate. Theseare:

• Preliminary Project Appreciation Stage;• Estimate Establishment Stage; and• Review and Approval Stage.

It is recommended that an estimate plan be prepared by the ProjectManager, to ensure that proper knowledge and resources are availableand are applied to preparation of the estimate.

6.3 Preliminary Project Appreciation Stage

The following paragraphs indicate the activities that will be undertakenin this interrogative stage:


• • • •••


6.3.1 Estimate Programme Approximately 1 week should be allowed for the preparation of aConcept Estimate (assuming that all information is available).





computer generated quantities, property valuations, hand over cost estimates and the like.

6.3.3 Project ProgrammeA project development programme is to be prepared. This shouldindicate all significant activities and milestones, together with anapproximate construction programme.

6.3.4 QuantitiesQuantities are likely to be of an approximate nature and will be taken-off by the estimator.

6.3.5 Site VisitA site visit should be made by anyone on the estimating team who isunfamiliar with the project.


• • • •••

6.3.6 Construction MethodsFor significant items (such as earthworks or road pavement), theestimator is to determine the probable construction methods that will beadopted by the successful tenderer.

6.3.7 Pre-tender Construction ProgrammeFrom the methods assumed for significant items and historicalproductivities, a pre-tender construction programme is established.This will either confirm or replace the preliminary programmeestablished earlier in the process, generally at the Strategic Estimatestage.



The following paragraphs indicate the activities that will be undertakenfor a Unit Rates Estimate.

6.4.1 Understanding Historical DataHistorical data will be collected and analysed to determine:

• Market conditions prevailing at the time of the tender from which the data has been collected;

• Any peculiarities of the project from which the data has been collected;

• If front-end loading has occurred; and• An approximate allowance for contractors on and off site

overheads and profit (if available).

• • • •••


6.4.2 Adjusting Historical DataHistorical data is to be adjusted to bring it in line with the requirementsof the project being estimated, including (if necessary):

• An adjustment for inflation;• An adjustment for site conditions;• An adjustment for front-end loading; and• An adjustment for contractors on and off site overheads and

profit.

6.4.3 New RatesNew rates are to be computed for significant items (any item worthmore than 5% of the total estimate). These may be based on anapproximate first-principles estimate, quotations received fromsuppliers or a detailed assessment of historical data.

6.4.4 Cost EstimateThe estimate is calculated by multiplying the quantities by the unitrates deduced from first principles or historical data.

6.4.5 Contractors overheads, risk and marginGenerally the contractors overheads, risk and margin is included withinthe rates adopted earlier and no further adjustment is required.However, if a rate developed from first principles is used, it must havean addition for the contractors overheads, risk and margin.

6.4.6 Project Development CostsProject Development costs are defined in Chapter 4. At the time ofpreparation of a Concept Estimate, these costs have not all beenincurred and may be estimated from past experience.


• • • •••

6.4.7 Detailed Investigation and Design CostsDetailed investigation and design costs are defined in Chapter 4. At thetime of preparation of a Concept Estimate, these costs have not beenincurred and may be estimated from past experience.

6.4.8 Property Acquisition CostsProperty acquisition costs are defined in Chapter 4. Propertyacquisition costs must be obtained from RTA’s Property Section.


6.4.9 Hand over CostsHand over costs are defined in Chapter 4. A detailed estimate of thesecosts is to be prepared.



Appropriate contingencies must be added to each component of theproject estimate. At concept estimate stage, contingencies in the rangeof 20% to 35% are appropriate. Contingencies outside this range mustbe justified.

It is mandatory that a risk analysis be prepared for Concept Costestimates.

• • • •••


6.5 Review

Prior to commencement of the Concurrence, Approval and Acceptanceprocedure, the Project Manager should arrange a review of theestimate.

This should follow a structured format and be documented.


All detailed estimates are the subject of concurrence, approval andacceptance as detailed in Chapter 2.

The procedure is detailed in the following flowcharts.


• • • •••


PROCESS MAP

A

ListKnown Risks

Project Manager

ListKey Assumptions

Project Manager


Start


ScopeProject





Project Manager



Project Manager


Manager, PMO

Project Manager




DCB


* Concept - Longitudinal Section, Critical Sections. TypicalCross Sections (Cut/Fill), Most Utilities.

* Detailed - Full set of plans including longitudinal section,cross sections, Utilities locations clearly marked.


Information to be submitted withthe estimate for a concurrencecheck:* Estimate Type* Plans* Scope* Key assumptions* Known risks* Reality check


YES

NO


• • • •••


Appendix 6.3 contains a sample Concept Cost Estimate Reportsubmitted for Concurrence, Acceptance and Approval.


PROCESS MAP

A

General Manager,PMO

Estimator, PMO

Estimator, PMO

Estimator, PMO

Project Manager



DCB



YES

NO





GM, PMO Concurrence




YES

NO



Client

FINISH



• • • •••

Appendix 6.3 contains a sample concept estimate report, to besubmitted for concurrence, approval and acceptance of the concept costestimate.

Appendix 6.4 contains the Verification Checklist, to be submitted forconcurrence, approval and acceptance of the concept cost estimate.

Appendix 6.5 contains the Estimate Approval and Acceptance form tobe submitted for concurrence, approval and acceptance of the conceptcost estimate.

• • • •••



• • • •••

A P P E N D I X 6 . 1


• • • •••


Moree CBD Bypass Cost Estimate Scope

Rev: B Printed: 4 May 2001 S:\20000 series\20299\RTA Samples\Moree\Cost Estimate Scoping Report.DOC

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................................3

2. THE PROJECT............................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 BYPASS DESIGN PHILOSOPHY ............................................................................................... 4

3. BASE CASE ESTIMATE DETAILS...........................................................................................................................6

3.1 GENERAL.................................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 URBAN SECTION SOUTH - NEWELL HIGHWAY (SOUTH) TO THE SPA BATHS................... 8

3.2.1 Extent of Work.................................................................................................................. 8

3.2.2 Constraints ....................................................................................................................... 9

3.2.3 Cross Section ................................................................................................................... 9

3.2.4 Road Geometry ................................................................................................................ 9

3.2.5 Intersection and Local Roads ........................................................................................... 9

3.2.6 Earthworks........................................................................................................................ 9

3.2.7 Pavement ....................................................................................................................... 10

3.2.8 Drainage......................................................................................................................... 10

3.2.9 Structures ....................................................................................................................... 10

3.2.10 Property Adjustments and Acquisitions .......................................................................... 10

3.2.11 Public Utility Adjustments ............................................................................................... 11

3.2.12 Noise Mitigation.............................................................................................................. 11

3.2.13 Urban Design.................................................................................................................. 11

3.2.14 Miscellaneous................................................................................................................. 11

3.2.15 Handover........................................................................................................................ 11

3.3 URBAN SECTION NORTH – JONES AVENUE TO MEHI RIVER ............................................ 12

3.3.1 Extent of work................................................................................................................. 12

3.3.2 Constraints ..................................................................................................................... 12

3.3.3 Cross Section ................................................................................................................. 13

3.3.4 Road Geometry .............................................................................................................. 13

3.3.5 Intersection and Local Works ......................................................................................... 13



3.3.6 Earthworks...................................................................................................................... 13

3.3.7 Pavement ....................................................................................................................... 13

3.3.8 Drainage......................................................................................................................... 13

3.3.9 Structures ....................................................................................................................... 14




3.3.13 Vibration Mitigation ......................................................................................................... 16

3.3.14 Urban Design.................................................................................................................. 16

3.3.15 Miscellaneous................................................................................................................. 16

3.4 RURAL SECTION NORTH – MEHI RIVER TO NEWELL HIGHWAY (NORTH) ....................... 16

3.4.1 Constraints ..................................................................................................................... 16

3.4.2 Cross Section ................................................................................................................. 17

3.4.3 Road Geometry .............................................................................................................. 17

3.4.4 Intersection and Local Roads ......................................................................................... 17

3.4.5 Earthworks...................................................................................................................... 17

3.4.6 Pavement ....................................................................................................................... 17

3.4.7 Drainage......................................................................................................................... 17

3.4.8 Structures ....................................................................................................................... 17




3.4.12 Flood Mitigation .............................................................................................................. 19

3.4.13 Urban Design and Landscaping ..................................................................................... 19

3.4.14 Miscellaneous................................................................................................................. 19



1. INTRODUCTION This report outlines the works included in the cost estimate for the preferred alignment option known as the Gosport Street Option (Option 2 in earlier studies). The option has evolved from consideration of seven feasible route corridors (4 inner and 3 outer) to the scheme currently on public display, see Figure 1.1 for the alignment in relation to Moree.

The preferred alignment option has been sufficiently developed to show the general form of the bypass, treatments at key locations (intersections, access links, railway station precinct and the like) and properties affected by acquisition.

The cost estimate for the Bypass has been derived from a schedule of main construction activities and typical unit cost rates as well as a contingency allowance to deal with the normal unknowns and variations that inevitably arise. The desirable outcome is that this Initial Concept Estimate will not be exceeded by the Final Concept Estimate and later on the Detailed Estimate as the design evolves.

This document is to be read in conjunction with the attached cost estimate spreadsheets.



2. THE PROJECT The cost estimate presented is for the preferred alignment option with Tee intersections at the two Newell Highway connections, see Figures 1.2 and 1.3 attached for details of the Initial Concept Design. This estimate is referred to as the ‘base case’ estimate.

As an aid for comparison of this project estimate with that of other similar road projects, separate estimates have been established for the three environmentally distinct sections that can be found along the route. The three distinct sections are:

! Urban Section South

• This section extends from the Newell Highway to the Spa Baths (CH 00 to CH1020) and comprises a complete upgrade at the highway (Tee intersection) and reconstruction of the two central lanes in existing Gosport Street. The environment through which the route passes is built and essentially industrial/commercial in nature with residences (12) interspersed throughout

! Urban Section North

• Travelling north from the Spa Baths the bypass deviates from existing Gosport Street and travels beside the railway to the Mehi River (CH 1020 to CH 1920). The construction within this section is for the full carriageway width and includes a combined road/rail signalised intersection upgrade at the Gwydir Highway. In relation to built environment the section is predominantly urban with the rural interface at the river.

! Rural Section North • Continuing north via a new bridge over the Mehi River the Bypass follows

Gwydirfield Road and a lane at the rear of the Moree racecourse before connecting onto the existing Newell Highway (Tee intersection) (Ch 1920 to Ch 3760). The surrounding environment is rural with small hobby style farms along the eastern side. Council has indicated that they are favourably considering re-subdividing these rural holdings into smaller lots (2 to 2.5 hectares in size).

The public display also shows alternate high-speed intersection treatments at the two Newell Highway connections with the alignment biased towards the Bypass, see Figures 1.4 and 1.5. The cost estimates for these two sub-options have been separately determined.

2.1 BYPASS DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

In the southern Gosport Street section a ‘best fit’ approach has been adopted as the most appropriate. Local deviations in level and pavement shape have been smoothed to achieve a geometric standard suitable for a national highway. The design speed within this urban section changes from 100km/h at the Mehi River to 70km/h speed prior to the Gwydir Highway. The latter speed being considered compatible for an arterial road within an industrial urban environment.



The status of the concept design at this stage is preliminary and detailed features such as water quality ponds or widening for say guardrail flaring has not been incorporated into the design model.

While still to be finalised, the pavement adopted as most appropriate for both the urban and rural sections is a heavy duty semi-rigid pavement comprising an AC wearing course and deep lift asphalt base over a lean mix subbase and select material zone. This pavement type was considered best to manage the notorious expansive black clay subgrade and volume of heavy traffic (currently predicted at some 1200 semi-trailers/road trains per day). In the urban section the pavement extends to either just beyond the edge of the through traffic lane (traffic lane plus 300mm) or if in a kerbed area across the full road (traffic lanes and adjacent parking lane). In the rural area the pavement extends across the full carriageway width (traffic lane and shoulder).

In relation to flooding and highway operation the initial concept has been designed to be trafficable during a 1 in 20 year recurrent flood event, that is one lane in each direction flood free. In larger events, ie.1 in 100 year ARI, the Bypass would be inundated and most likely closed to traffic. This flood free standard is consistent with performance goals for the national highway system.



3. BASE CASE ESTIMATE DETAILS 3.1 GENERAL

Property acquisition

The cost of property acquisition in this initial estimate is based upon anticipated just compensation that makes allowance for the value of holding and a solartium/relocation provision. The RTA are at present undertaking valuation assessments and having discussions with affected property owners. As details come to hand the cost estimate will be accordingly updated. Indications to date suggest that the overall estimate for acquisition is of the right order.

Where railway property is to be acquired the stated position of Rail Access Corporation is that the whole of the property on the roadside and beyond is to be acquired. For instance, in the case of the former railway siding to the Morton Street Woolstore (north of the Bypass) will have to be acquired, as will the tennis court property west of the Bypass.

In this project it is likely that the RTA will become an owner of residual property that may not be able to be on-sold. Where on selling is possible the credit benefits have been accrued to the project.

Construction mobilisation and operation

In the estimate the cost of mobilisation, establishment, community liaison and preparation of 15 project plans (management plans - environmental, earthworks, traffic, OH&S, QA, etc) has been allowed.

The estimate includes a provision for general items such as for preparation of:

• Contract required plans (eg. Project Quality Plan, OH&S Plan, Environmental Management Plan, etc),

• Traffic management

• monitoring noise, vibration, air and water quality, vegetation protection

• heritage and fauna surveys

• Two building condition inspections (before and after) have been allowed at each frontage site including 25 properties in Morton Street that are within 90 metres of the bypass (within the noise impact zone).

• Demolition of unwanted works

The cost has been uniformly distributed over the three road sections (urban south, urban north and rural north)

Earthworks

South of the Gwydir Highway the Bypass has been graded to match the existing surface. Earthworks for this urban section have been calculated from the product of pavement area by the depth of pavement (including the SMZ zone) less an allowance for salvaged pavements and topsoil stripping. North of the Gwydir Highway the earthworks have been



determined direct from the concept design model with an additional allowance for creek works and the highway intersection upgrade.

In respect of the earthworks the following general assumptions have been made:

• A stripping depth of 100mm for salvaged pavements. The existing pavements in the area are known to be thin.

• A topsoil stripping depth of 100mm

• A compaction factor of 10%.

In summary the earthworks cut/fill volumes for the base case are:

BASE CASE EARTHWORK VOLUMES (m3)

SECTION CUT FILL

Urban South 8300 0

Urban North 7600 12550

Rural North 16550 15050

TOTAL 32450 27600

Fill plus 10% 30360

Spoil 2090

Construction period and sequence

A construction period of 18 months is envisaged.

The construction sequence for the project presumes that the Mehi River bridge and the inner urban sections within the town would be undertaken first and any excavated material that is surplus to requirements disposed of during this first stage. Early completion of the bridge would provide a cross-river connection and reduce construction traffic impacts on surrounding Moree. Pavement The pavement proposed for the urban and rural sections is a heavy duty semi-rigid pavement comprising:

• a 50mm AC 14 wearing course,

• a 150 mm deep lift AC 20 base course over

• a 175mm lean mix sub base, and overlaying

• a 300mm SMZ layer

The Select Material Zone is to be made up of salvaged road base obtained from existing roads and gravel from the gravel pits off the Newell Highway 10 km north of Moree.



The AC is likely to be batched on site with material imported by road.

The AC quantities used in the estimate have been derived from the product of the pavement surface area and thickness and then converted to tonnes (2.35 tonnes per m3). The lean mix quantities have been based on the AC quantity and converted to m3 and adjusted for the extension beneath kerbs.

Drainage

In the urban section north of the Spa Baths the bypass is kerbed and an underground drainage system provided, see Figure 1.6 for the layout. The system has been design for one lane to flood free during a 1 in 20 year recurrent storm event and a maximum intrusion distance of water into the travel lane of 1.0m.

In the urban section south of the Spa Baths, other than at the Newell Highway intersection upgrade, the works are confined to upgrading the central traffic lanes only and use is made of the existing Gosport drainage system.

Noise

The EIS working paper on noise and noise impacts is in the process of being finalised. Thus in relation to this estimate the extent of work and costs assumed for the mitigation measures while indicative is embracive of a number of feasible solutions. The cost presently allowed in the estimate for full mitigation treatment of a residence (thick glazing, sealing of doors and roof, air conditioning) is $15,000 and thick glazing of a residence or factory office $2,000.

3.2 URBAN SECTION SOUTH - NEWELL HIGHWAY (SOUTH) TO THE SPA BATHS

3.2.1 Extent of Work At the southern end of the project the limit of work for the base case is located immediately north of the existing Amaroo Drive intersection. Improvement works shown further south (including the adjacent Amaroo Drive connection) are part of a Bulluss Drive upgrade project, a separate works project. The scope of work for this section includes:

• Construction of a Tee intersection at Gosport Street/Newell Highway connection - existing pavement reconstruction on both the Newell Highway and Gosport Street, upgrading of the intersection and immediate area stormwater/drainage system, construction of a water quality/spillage control pond, intersection street lighting and urban design/landscaping. Partial property acquisition is involved to accommodate the upgraded intersection.

• Gosport Street between the Newell Highway intersection works and Jones Avenue - full reconstruction of the two central traffic lanes only, the reconstruction extending 300mm beyond the outside edge of the travel lane. Enhancement of infrastructure works beyond, other than match to existing, that is, upgrade of existing shoulders, footpaths, kerbs, driveways, drainage, utility services and street lighting is not included in this base case estimate.



• Gosport Street between Jones Avenue and the Spa Baths - as well as full reconstruction of the two centre traffic lanes the inclusion of a common centre turn lane (pavement reconstruction similarly to extend 300mm beyond the outer edge of the travel lane). Except for relocation of a watermain on the western side of the new pavement work and possible level adjustments to several sewer manholes, no upgrade to the existing infrastructure facilities beyond is envisaged.

3.2.2 Constraints The priority at the Newell Highway intersection has been designed to favour the Bypass with southbound Frome Street traffic (former Newell Highway) required to give way to right turning Bypass bound traffic (northbound). To ensure ease of movement this right turn is to be superelevated. Other than at the Newell Highway intersection where some partial property acquisition is required, the new work along Gosport Street fits within the existing road reserve. In this section there are 16 industrial/commercial facilities and 12 residences fronting Gosport Street. Provision has been made in the estimate for temporary vehicle access to these properties. Gosport Street to be constructed one half road at a time. At the Newell Highway intersection the new work on the Gosport Street approach is generally clear of the existing carriageway thereby simplifying construction. To maintain north-south traffic flow along Frome Street (former Newell Highway) a sidetrack is required, vacant TSR land to the west is available.

3.2.3 Cross Section Both the through and turn lanes are 3.5m wide with local widening at the Newell Highway intersection to enable road trains up to 35m long to turn. Road shoulders where shown are 2.0m wide.

3.2.4 Road Geometry This southern urban section is in a built environment and accordingly the Bypass has been designed for a low speed (70km/h design). ‘S’ bends within the section assist in reinforcing the low speed message to drivers.

3.2.5 Intersection and Local Roads At the Newell Highway intersection the median and splitter islands are to be kerbed and street lighting installed. Along Gosport Street the side road connections (Jones Avenue, Thompson Avenue, and Adelaide Street) are graded to smoothly join the new work, the limit of which is generally in line with the Gosport Street boundary.

3.2.6 Earthworks Of the 8300 m3 of cut material obtained from this urban section some 2100 m3 is estimated to be surplus to the overall project requirement and to be disposed off. The remainder is to be transported direct to the embankment south of the Mehi River. The material excavated in this section is likely to a mix of black clays and gravel/sand road base.



3.2.7 Pavement Fluctuations in heavy vehicle traffic arising from Moree’s seasonal wheat and cotton activities are difficult to predict and can vary considerably throughout the year. The close proximity of the Bulluss Drive (a primary east/west access to Moree’s industrial area and wheat silos) to the Bypass/Newell Highway intersection is an added complication that requires a flexibility of design. To accommodate the possibility of heavy vehicles standing on Gosport Street provision has been made in the estimate for the full pavement depth to extend into the approach road shoulder for a distance of 140m (to Ch260).

3.2.8 Drainage At the Newell Highway intersection the road surface is slightly higher than the general surrounds. This is an inherited condition. To ensure drainage of the immediate area a system of shallow table drains and pipes are proposed. This new system will divert the runoff collected into a water quality/spillage control basin located in acquired TSR land west of the existing highway. North of the highway intersection (Newell Highway intersection to Spa Baths) the Bypass utilises the existing Gosport Street drainage system. There is no provision in the base case estimate for upgrading existing drainage facilities in this area.

3.2.9 Structures No major structures occur within this section.

3.2.10 Property Adjustments and Acquisitions At the Newell Highway intersection and at the connecting side roads (Jones Avenue, Thompsons Avenue and Adelaide Street) partial acquisition of several properties is required to accommodate the new intersection or address road safety concerns by improving driver sight lines. Properties where acquisition is envisaged are: Newell Highway • TSR (western side) (partial) – intersection upgrade

• Cnr Newell Hwy/Gosport St, Lot 560 DP 751780 HM QE 2 (partial) – water quality/spillage control pond

Gosport Street • Lot 1 DP 559298 Moree Shire Council (partial) – Newell Highway intersection

upgrade

• Lot 1 DP 559298 Boral Energy (partial) – Newell Highway intersection upgrade

• Lot 560 DP 821253 D & G Sweeney (partial) – Newell Highway intersection upgrade

• Lot 1 DP 220684 Grainland Pty Ltd (corner splay) – Jones Avenue

• Auto Consol 7806-227 B & W Rural Pty Ltd (corner splay) – Jones Avenue

• Lot C DP 33255 Vonline Pty Ltd (corner splay) – Thompson Avenue

• Lot 2 DP 559535 Vonline Pty Ltd (corner splay) – Thompson Avenue

• Lot 1 DP 316750 The British Imperial Oil Company Ltd (corner splay) – Adelaide Street



An existing building on Lot 10 DP 37950 Peter & Sandra Duncan prevents a corner splay on the north side of Adelaide Street from being acquired.

3.2.11 Public Utility Adjustments There are a number of public utility services, particularly at the southern end of the project, which are impacted on by the new works. While the requirements of the relevant authorities are to be finalised provision has been made in the estimate for:

• Protection and relocation of Telstra services (a nominal allowance)

• Relocation of 3 low voltage and 11 high voltage power poles impacted on by the intersection works

Between the Newell Highway intersection and the Spa Baths:

• Minor adjustments to several sewer manholes in the area and an allowance for possible protection of 60 metres of sewer main.

• Relocation of 470 metres of 150mm watermain

• Adjustments to watermain fixtures at the Newell Highway intersection

• Relocation of water supply house connections to eight frontage properties in Gosport Street

3.2.12 Noise Mitigation Mitigation measures envisaged within this section are:

• Installation of thick window glazing at 21 individual factory offices,

• Installation of thick window glazing, sealing of doors and roofs and possible installation of air conditioning at 12 residences.

3.2.13 Urban Design While the urban design requirement for this project is to be resolved a provisional sum of $129,950 has been made in the estimate for an entry statement at the southern intersection.

3.2.14 Miscellaneous Street lighting of the Newell highway intersection is included in the concept design. There is no provision for lighting the midblock section of Gosport Street. The estimate has been based on 8 poles along each approach and cabling supply to the site. Property adjustments works in the area are minor and involve relocation of driveways, gates and fences.

3.2.15 Handover

At the completion of the Bypass the Frome Street south section of the former national highway is to be upgraded for handover to Council. The upgrading extends to patch repair and resealing of from the Gwydir Highway (Alice Street) to Gosport Street.



3.3 URBAN SECTION NORTH – JONES AVENUE TO MEHI RIVER (Ch 1020 to Ch 1920)

3.3.1 Extent of work The extent of work within this urban north section includes:

• Between the Spa Baths and the Gwydir Highway the bypass deviates through railway land. The Bypass is new and fully kerbed with two through traffic lanes and parking lanes either side. Stormwater drainage is provided and piped to a detention basin located in acquired land north of the Gwydir Highway.

• The Gwydir Highway intersection is signalised and integrated with the adjacent rail crossing. Each road approach (highway and bypass) comprises a sheltered right turn lane, a through traffic lane and a shared through/left turn lane.

• In the section between the Gwydir Highway and the Mehi River the bypass transitions from an urban profile to a rural one at the bridge. The rural section comprises two through lanes and shoulders either side. The stormwater detention basin mentioned previously is located on acquired land east of the Bypass (between the Bypass and Gosport Street) and is used to control runoff, water quality and spillage.

• Enhancement of railway/Spa Baths precinct. The precise nature work in this area involves a number of stakeholders (Rail Infrastructure Corporation, Rail Services Australia, Council,). While the precise requirements of stakeholders is to be established the provision in this base case estimate includes :

- Roadworks at the Gosport Street / Anne Street intersection, - Removal of the tennis courts, - Relocation of the railway workshops (to the tennis court site), - Relocation of the railway carpark and bus setdown to Morton

Street (eastern side of the station), and - Provision for a featured landscaped reserve opposite the Spa

Baths

• A modified road link between River and Morton Streets at the Showground.

• Provision of a narrow road connection between Morton Street east (north of the Gwydir Highway) and Oak Lane.

3.3.2 Constraints The Bypass at Gwydir Highway intersection is aligned as close to the railway line as can be practically achieved (10m offset from track centreline to Bypass boundary). The close proximity of the two facilities enables an efficient and safe integration of the Gwydir Highway/rail crossing to be achieved. The cost for providing an integrated signalised system includes a contribution to the railways for upgrading the rail signalling.



The total cost of the traffic signals including contingencies is estimated at $523,500 (road signals $336,000 and railway signals $188,500).

3.3.3 Cross Section Through and intersection turn lanes are 3.5m wide with local widening to cater for the turn path of road trains up to 35m long.

3.3.4 Road Geometry The geometry of this southern urban section is mostly dictated by aligning the road and rail in a common transport corridor. In the transition zone between urban and rural (north of the Gwydir Highway) the road is curved and the carriageway superelevated to safely manage the higher travel speed.

3.3.5 Intersection and Local Works At the Gwydir Highway intersection provision has been made in the estimate for reconstruction of the existing highway between Gosport and Morton Streets. Further provision has also been made for relocation of the railway carpark to the eastern side of the station and relocation of affected railway workshops to the tennis court area. Roadwork improvements at Gosport Street/Anne Street, River Street/Morton Street and Morton Street/ Oaks Lane connections.

3.3.6 Earthworks The Initial Design Concept model indicates some 12550 m3 of fill material is required for the embankment on the southern side of the Mehi River. Excavations from both urban sections yield sufficient material to meet this need. The average haulage distance involved is one kilometre (maximum two kilometres).

3.3.7 Pavement The full pavement within this section extends across the whole carriageway including travel/turn lanes and shoulder/parking lanes.

3.3.8 Drainage In this section the Bypass is for the most part fully kerbed and a piped drainage system is provided to collect and direct runoff to the Mehi River via a detention basin (located on the acquired land between River Street and the Gwydir Highway). The system is separate to the existing Council system in Gosport Street. Water surface levels in the Mehi River (available head) and the time it takes for the river to lower after flooding determines the need for a detention basin and controls where the discharge point can be (western side of the Bypass where the river level is lowest). Historically the water level in the Mehi takes two to three days to lower when the river has been in flood. A water quality/spillage control pond is proposed at the upstream side of the detention basin. For safety reasons this pond is to be fully fenced. The design criteria applied to the detention basin (water depth 1.0m max., embankment slopes 1 in 6) enable the area to be open to the public and used as park or play ground.



An assumption in the design is that the railway land in the station precinct (east of the Bypass) can be drained to the existing Anne Street outlet by installing shallow table drains and modifying the existing pipework. The table drains are shown located within railway property. Existing drainage lines in Morton Street enable the relocated railway carpark to be readily drained.

3.3.9 Structures No major structures occur within this section.

3.3.10 Property Adjustments and Acquisitions Property acquisition is necessary to accommodate the Bypass and detention basin. The list of properties to be acquired is: Gosport Street • Lot 1 DP855832 R & P Russell – commercial (Nissan/Mazda dealer)

• Lot E DP 363918 K & T Bella – residential

• Lot D DP 363918 HRM QE2 Police Dept – residential

• Lot 3 DP 667744 K & G Berger – residential

• Lot 3 DP 664162 D Berger – residential

• Lot 3 DP 664162 D Berger – residential

• Lot B DP 356257 K & G Berger – residential

• Lot A DP 356257 M Berger – residential

• Lot 5 Sec 31 DP 758706 K & G Berger – residential River Street • Lot A DP 373511 K Mead – residential

• Lot B DP 373511 E Smith – residential

• Lot 1 DP839694 Aboriginal Corp – residential

• Moree Showground (partial) – corner splay at Morton/River Streets Morton Street • Lot 2 DP 600610 Jonenderbee Investments P/L - former Woolstore (partial) Rail Property

• RAC - Austrac lease (partial)

• Lot 82 DP 1006136 RSA - former booking office (partial)

• RAC/RSA (both sides of station - Gosport & Morton St frontages) (partial)

• Lot 81 DP 1006136 RSA - workshop & tennis courts (entire)

• Lot 6 DP 836431 - SRA rail corridor (partial)

• Lot 8 DP 825743 SRA – residential



• Lot 5 DP 845620 SRA - rail corridor


• Lot 3 DP 829660 SRA - rail corridor – Woolstore siding

• Lot 3 DP 845620 SRA - residential lease – Mrs Samson’s house



Credits for property resale have been allowed in the estimate for:

• Lot 3 DP 829660 SRA - rail corridor – Woolstore siding

Mrs Samson’s (SRA lease, Lot 3 DP 845620) leases the land fro the SRA and owns the house. Provision in the estimate for purchasing the lease from the SRA and relocating the house onto the former Woolstore railway siding in Morton Street.

3.3.11 Public Utility Adjustments Other than disconnection of services to the acquired properties listed above, the known public utilities where works are required are:

• Diversion of a 150mm sewer main between Gwydir Highway and Morton Street north. This main is the discharge line for a rising main from the Services Club in Albert Street.

• Relocation of Telstra services in Gwydir Highway

• Relocation of several power/light poles currently in railway property

3.3.12 Noise Mitigation The noise impacts within this section where noise mitigation measures are provided in this estimated include:

• Installation of thick window glazing in 28 residences at $2,000 each,

• Installation of thick window glazing, sealing of doors and roofs and possible installation of air conditioning to 6 residences at $15,000 each.

• Treatment at the Spa Baths to the value of $15,000

• Treatment at the Victoria Hotel to the value of $30,000

• Treatment at the Motel (cnr Gosport St & Gwydir Hwy) to the value of $15,000

• Treatment at the hotel (cnr Gwydir Hwy & Morton Street) to the value of $15,000

• Installation of a noise wall along the western side of the Bypass north of the Gwydir Highway to protect the Gosport Street, River Street residents, the showground caretaker and Mrs Samson’s house if relocated to Morton Street. The wall is 1.8m high, 360m long and sited on top of an earth mound. Further analysis of noise impacts on the Gosport Street and River Street residences may lead to treating individual houses rather than the installation of a wall. The estimate will be refined as details become available.



3.3.13 Vibration Mitigation The assessment report indicates that vibration problems are not anticipated and that no special treatment is required at the Spa Baths.

3.3.14 Urban Design Special urban design/landscaping features for this project are yet to be established and a provisional sum of $258,600 (including contingencies) has been allowed in the estimate for treatment of the Spa Baths/tennis court precinct, the detention basin in Gosport Street, relocated railway carpark, and local road connections.

3.3.15 Miscellaneous The former railway booking office located between the Bypass and the railway station is to be demolished. Other than Mrs Samson’s house structures on the acquired properties are to be demolished. No provision has been made in the estimate for any salvage value. An allowance has been made in the estimate for street lighting the Gwydir Highway intersection.

3.4 RURAL SECTION NORTH – MEHI RIVER TO NEWELL HIGHWAY (NORTH) (Ch 1920 to Ch 3760)

• At the Mehi River crossing, a 150 metre two-lane bridge. The bridge is to minimum width in accordance with current standards (2 x 3.5m traffic lanes, 1.2m wide shoulders either side). There is no provision for a footway.

• Two lane two way rural road with paved shoulders (Mehi River to the Newell Highway)

• Tee intersection at the Newell Highway.

• Connection of Gwydirfield Road onto the Bypass and closure of the Webb Avenue link (south of the Racecourse)

• Major culvert crossings at Stringers Creek and two channels

3.4.1 Constraints The priority at the Newell Highway intersection is designed to favour the existing highway. Drivers heading north on the Bypass are required to give way. As previously stated the design philosophy for this rural section does not differ basically from that of any other two lane rural highway. However, the emphasis to satisfy the physical constraints (sight lines at the Newell Highway intersection, minimising property acquisition), and the environmental constraints (clearance between railway and Bypass bridges, containment of the impact on the river corridor) dictates an alignment designed for 100km/h rather than 110km/h. There are 7 rural properties including heritage listed “Gwydirfield” homestead that front the Bypass. Provision has been made in the estimate for access.



3.4.2 Cross Section The traffic and turn lanes are 3.5m wide (with local widening at intersections to allow for the turn path of road trains up to 35m long) and the road shoulders 2.0m wide.

3.4.3 Road Geometry As stated above the geometry in this rural section is designed to a 100km/h design standard.

3.4.4 Intersection and Local Roads At the Newell Highway intersection the median and splitter islands on the Bypass approach and are to be kerbed. Street lighting is also to be installed to improve intersection visibility and safety. The Gwyderfield Road connection is to a rural country road standard. A 3.7m low height clearance on the adjacent railway bridge limits vehicle usage. A cul-de-sac style closure of Webb Avenue is envisaged.

3.4.5 Earthworks The cut to fill within this section is in balance with some 16550 m3 cut material obtained from the excavation works.

3.4.6 Pavement As previously stated the pavement for both travel lanes and shoulders is a deep lift semi-rigid heavy-duty pavement designed to best manage the expansive black clays.

3.4.7 Drainage In this area the Bypass crosses the Gwydirfield flood plain and the road set for the travel lane to be flood free during a 1 in 20 year flood event. Water sheds to table drains on either side of the bypass. The EIS flood study has established the size of the bridge and culvert openings.

3.4.8 Structures The major structures within this section are:

• 150 m long bridge over the Mehi river (2x3.5m traffic lanes with 1.2m shoulders either side)

• A 4 cell 1.2 x 2.4 RCBC at each of the two channel crossings

• .A 17 cell 1.2 x 2.4 RCBC at Stringers Creek

Mehi River Bridge

The flood study has confirmed that a 150m long bridge is adequate without major afflux impacts. The estimate allows for increasing the design loading from HLP320 to a SM1600 standard. The contingency allowance includes provision for a possible increase in shoulder width from the designed 1.2m to 2.0m.



Major culverts A Box culvert arrangement at the channel and creek crossings has been adopted because of the limited height available between the invert and road level.

3.4.9 Property Adjustments and Acquisitions Property acquisition is required within this section: Gwydirfield Road • Gwydirfield Lot 1 DP 575425 - house fronts Gwydirfield Rd – partial

• Torelliana Lot 1 DP 565380 - rural property – partial

• Hifields Lot 3 DP 540123 - house fronts Gwydirfield Rd – whole

• Long lands Lot 1 DP 535838 - rural property - house fronts Gwydirfield Rd – whole

• Part Katanning Lot 4 DP 869679 - rural property – partial

• Part Katanning Lot 3 DP 869679 - rural property – partial

• Racecourse – partial

Aboriginal heritage steel bridge camp site

At the Mehi River the Bypass traverses the aboriginal heritage “Steel Bridge” camp site. Costs if any have not been determined at this stage and the RTA negotiations with the aboriginal community are continuing. Property resale credits Unless discussions with the landowners indicates otherwise the properties listed below are assumed as being purchase as a whole and the residual available for resale. Resale properties:

• Hifields Lot 3 DP 540123 - rural property

• Long lands Lot 1 DP 535838 - rural property

3.4.10 Public Utility Adjustments The known utilities in this rural section where provision in the estimate has been made are:

• A relocation of Telstra service

• Relocation of 6 power poles At the Newell Highway intersection:

• Protection of existing water mains in the vicinity of the water supply pump station.

3.4.11 Noise Mitigation Noise mitigating is required at Gwydirfield homestead.



3.4.12 Flood Mitigation

A flood study undertaken as part of the EIS working papers indicates that there will be an afflux increase in water level during river flooding as a result of the bypass and that flood mitigation is required at the “Gwydirfield” homestead (80mm afflux during 1 in 100 year ARI). Provision has been made in the estimate for installing a small bund wall around the homestead.

3.4.13 Urban Design and Landscaping The special urban design features for this project are yet to be established and a provisional sum of $84,540 has been made in the estimate for an entry statement at the northern intersection and for a display feature at the Steel Bridge Camp site. Landscaping is required at the racecourse to shield the course from headlight glare, an issue during early morning training. A provision of $52,000 has been allowed in the estimate.

3.4.14 Miscellaneous In this section it has been assumed that a fence is required along the acquired property boundary. No provision has been made in the estimate for fencing the western side between the Mehi River and the Bypass. Safety barriers (protective steel guard fence) are envisaged on the approaches to the bridge (200m long) and at the culvert crossings (100m long at the two channels and 150m long at Stringers Creek).

• • • •••


• • • •••

A P P E N D I X 6 . 2


• • • •••





Code

Service Competition

Category


Wagner C EC


MC RTAD


Region D RTAD


Region PD RTAD


MD RTAD


MA RTAD


Job Subjobs Subjob

Component Code

Service Competition

Category


MI RTAD


• • • •••

A P P E N D I X 6 . 3

CHAPTER 0SAMPLE CONCEPT ESTIMATE REPORT

• • • •••


RTA - MEMORANDUM

WESTERN REGION

TO: FROM: The General Manager P Standen Project Management Office Project Manager BLACKTOWN

01 March 2001 R.O Ref: 17/291.1161 STATE HIGHWAY NO 17 - NEWELL HIGHWAY. PROPOSED MOREE BYPASS. SUBMISSION FOR CONCURRENCE WITH THE DRAFT INITIAL CONCEPT ESTIMATE. PURPOSE The purpose of this submission is to gain concurrence to the Draft Initial Concept Estimate for the subject project. BACKGROUND The preferred option (ie the Gosport Street Option) was approved by the Federal Minister for Transport & Regional Services on 14 June 2000. The announced project estimate was $27M. (Concurrence to the Preliminary Estimate for the Preferred Option was granted by PMO on 13/3/00). Following initial concept design development work, a meeting was held on 7/11/00 between Western Region Client Services, RNI and DoTRS to facilitate presentation and discussion of the preliminary concept design for the project. At this meeting, RNI and DoTRS were advised that the Initial Concept Estimate was likely to exceed the approved Preliminary Estimate by up to ten per cent. Furthermore, there are a number of scope issues associated with the intersection treatments at each end of the project that need to be agreed and finalised. It was agreed that the Project Manager would prepare a Scope Report and an associated Draft Initial Concept Estimate for the current scope of works along with costings of the various potential scope changes with regard to the bypass connections. Further discussions would then be held to finalise the scope of work and to discuss funding implications. RNI requested that the Draft Initial Concept Estimate be submitted to PMO for concurrence prior to the proposed further discussions.

The estimate now submitted for PMO concurrence is the Draft Initial Concept Estimate as described above. Following concurrence and approval of the Draft Initial Concept Estimate and agreement with DoTRS with regard to the scope of the project, the estimate will be adjusted accordingly and re-submitted for concurrence as the Initial Concept Estimate. SCOPE CHANGES In addition to the Draft Initial Concept for the project, PMO is also requested to review the estimates for the potential scope changes for the project (as discussed Andrew/Standen on 1/3/01). These scope changes comprise: 1. High speed connection at northern end 2. High speed connection at southern end 3. Extension of project at southern end (Bullus Drive/Amaroo Drive Upgrade) 4. Full width construction (4 lanes instead of 2) in southern rural section Estimate and design details of these scope changes are currently being finalised and will be forwarded by 9 March 2001. ATTACHMENTS The following documents are attached: 1. Estimate Concurrence - Verification Checklist 2. Preparation of Concept Estimate - Verification Checklist 3. Estimate and Scoping Report The “Estimate Approval & Acceptance Form” will be forwarded following completion of the peer review for the estimate. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that concurrence be granted to the Draft Initial Concept Estimate in the amount of $28.85M. P Standen Project Manager

Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited Base Case Cost Estimate Summary

MOREE BYPASS

BASE CASE OPTION (Gosport Street Preferred Option)

Cost Estimate Summary(Ch 00 to Ch 3760)

Item Estimate ($) Estimate ($) % of Total Comments/Assumptions(excluding % Amount ($) (including Estimate

contingency) contingency)

1.0 Project Development1.1 Route/Concept/EIS/Reps Report $1,000,000.00 28% $280,000.00 $1,280,000.001.2 Project Management Services $200,000.00 28% $56,000.00 $256,000.001.3 Client Representation $20,000.00 28% $5,600.00 $25,600.00

Sub total $1,220,000.00 28.0% $341,600.00 $1,561,600.00 5.2%

2.0 Investigation and Design2.1 Investigation amd Design $350,000.00 28.0% $98,000.00 $448,000.002.2 Project Management Services $80,000.00 28.0% $22,400.00 $102,400.002.3 Client Representation $8,000.00 28.0% $2,240.00 $10,240.00

Sub total $438,000.00 28.0% $122,640.00 $560,640.00 1.9%

3.0 Property Acquisitions3.1 Professional Services for property $50,000.00 28.0% $14,000.00 $64,000.003.2 Property Acquisition Costs $2,345,000.00 25.0% $586,250.00 $2,931,250.003.3 Property Resale Credits -$331,500.00 -15.0% $49,725.00 -$281,775.003.4 Project Management Services $50,000.00 28.0% $14,000.00 $64,000.003.5 Client Representation $5,000.00 28.0% $1,400.00 $6,400.00

Sub total $2,118,500.00 31.4% $665,375.00 $2,783,875.00 9.4%

4.0 Public Utility Adjustments4.1 Adjust Utilities $1,222,440.98 35.0% $427,854.34 $1,650,295.324.2 Project Management Services $122,244.10 35.0% $42,785.43 $165,029.534.3 Client Representation $12,224.41 35.0% $4,278.54 $16,502.95

Sub total $1,356,909.48 35.0% $474,918.32 $1,831,827.80 6.2%

5.0 Construction5.1 Infrastructure - General $635,465.00 30.0% $190,639.50 $826,104.505.2 Infrastructure - Environmental $258,125.00 24.9% $64,221.25 $322,346.255.3 Infrastructure - Noise Mitigation $686,400.00 21.6% $148,580.00 $834,980.005.4 Infrastructure - Flood Mitigation $20,000.00 30.0% $6,000.00 $26,000.005.5 Infrastructure - Earthworks $913,681.00 25.2% $229,992.50 $1,143,673.505.6 Infrastructure - Drainage $1,555,290.00 25.0% $388,222.50 $1,943,512.505.7 Infrastructure - Pavement $5,513,860.00 20.1% $1,106,195.00 $6,620,055.005.8 Infrastructure - Structures $4,292,334.01 21.6% $926,459.75 $5,218,793.765.9 Infrastructure - Local Roads $674,000.00 28.9% $195,100.00 $869,100.005.10 Infrastructure - Urban Design & Landscaping $394,950.00 19.8% $78,140.00 $473,090.005.11 Infrastructure - Miscellaneous $2,180,763.50 21.2% $462,949.10 $2,643,712.605.12 Infrastructure - Site Management $1,027,492.11 25.0% $256,873.03 $1,284,365.14 .5.13 Project Management Services $342,497.37 25.0% $85,624.34 $428,121.715.14 Client Representation $34,249.74 25.0% $8,562.43 $42,812.17

Sub total $18,529,107.72 22.4% $4,147,559.41 $22,676,667.13 76.2%

6.0 Handover6.1 Refurbish works $173,000.00 25.0% $43,250.00 $216,250.006.2 Project Data and Performance $100,000.00 25.0% $25,000.00 $125,000.006.3 Project Management Services $1,000.00 25.0% $250.00 $1,250.006.4 Client Representation $1,000.00 25.0% $250.00 $1,250.00

Sub total $275,000.00 25.0% $68,750.00 $343,750.00 1.2%

TOTAL CONCEPT ESTIMATE $23,937,517.21 24.3% $5,820,842.72 $29,758,359.93 100.0%

INDICATIVE COST ESTIMATE ($ million) $29.76

PROJECT REALITY CHECK

Infrastructure Construction Unit Quantity Rates Comment(cost per unit)

InfrastructureLength of project km 3.76 $7.91 Project cost/kmLength of lane kilometres km 11.11 $2.68 Project cost/lane kmPavement area m2 51554 $128.41 Pavement cost /m2 pavementArea of structures - bridges m2 1410 $2,400.00 Bridge cost /m2 deck area (Mehi River bridge) - major culverts m2 1082 $1,129.57 Culvert cost/m2 deck area (creek crossings)Earthworks (Cut to fill, cut to spoil & imported fill) m3 35500 $9.10 Earthwork cost/m3 earthworksEarthworks (Select) m3 17820.00 $28.82Earthworks (Unsuitable) m3 3000 $43.75

Contingency

Moree_PREFERr2.XLSSheet: BASE CASE COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY

24/04/20011 of 1

MOREE BYPASS

BASE CASE OPTION (Gosport Street Preferred Option) - Northern Rural Section

Northern Rural Section Estimate Summary(Ch 1920 to Ch 3760 - 1.84 km)



1.0 Project Development1.1 Route/Concept/EIS/Reps Report $333,333.33 28% $93,333.33 $426,666.671.2 Project Management Services $66,666.67 28% $18,666.67 $85,333.331.3 Client Representation $6,666.67 28% $1,866.67 $8,533.33

Sub total $406,666.67 28.0% $113,866.67 $520,533.33 4.4%

2.0 Investigation and Design2.1 Investigation amd Design $116,666.67 28% $32,666.67 $149,333.332.2 Project Management Services $26,666.67 28% $7,466.67 $34,133.332.3 Client Representation $2,666.67 28% $746.67 $3,413.33

Sub total $146,000.00 28.0% $40,880.00 $186,880.00 1.6%

3.0 Property Acquisitions3.1 Professional Services for property $16,666.67 28% $4,666.67 $21,333.333.2 Property Acquisition Costs $525,000.00 25.0% $131,250.00 $656,250.003.3 Property Resale Credits -$311,500.00 -15.0% $46,725.00 -$264,775.003.4 Project Management Services $16,666.67 28% $4,666.67 $21,333.333.5 Client Representation $1,666.67 28% $466.67 $2,133.33

Sub total $248,500.00 75.6% $187,775.00 $436,275.00 3.7%

4.0 Public Utility Adjustments4.1 Adjust Utilities $267,000.48 35.0% $93,450.17 $360,450.644.2 Project Management Services $26,700.05 35.0% $9,345.02 $36,045.064.3 Client Representation $2,670.00 35.0% $934.50 $3,604.51

Sub total $296,370.53 35.0% $103,729.68 $400,100.21 3.4%

5.0 Construction5.1 Infrastructure - General $199,198.33 30.0% $59,759.50 $258,957.835.2 Infrastructure - Environmental $83,946.67 24.6% $20,676.67 $104,623.335.3 Infrastructure - Noise Mitigation $15,000.00 20.0% $3,000.00 $18,000.005.4 Infrastructure - Flood Mitigation $20,000.00 30.0% $6,000.00 $26,000.005.5 Infrastructure - Earthworks $407,520.00 25.3% $102,978.50 $510,498.505.6 Infrastructure - Drainage $179,500.00 25.0% $44,875.00 $224,375.005.7 Infrastructure - Pavement $1,969,420.00 20.1% $395,027.00 $2,364,447.005.8 Infrastructure - Structures $3,910,230.00 21.3% $830,933.75 $4,741,163.755.9 Infrastructure - Local Roads $400,000.00 38.5% $154,000.00 $554,000.005.10 Infrastructure - Urban Design & Landscaping $70,450.00 20.0% $14,090.00 $84,540.005.11 Infrastructure - Miscellaneous $558,795.00 22.0% $123,209.00 $682,004.005.12 Infrastructure - Site Management $468,843.60 25.0% $117,210.90 $586,054.505.13 Project Management Services $156,281.20 25% $39,070.30 $195,351.505.14 Client Representation $15,628.12 25% $3,907.03 $19,535.15

Sub total $8,454,812.92 22.6% $1,914,737.65 $10,369,550.57 87.0%

6.0 Handover6.1 Existing signs $5,000.00 25.0% $1,250.00 $6,250.006.2 Project Data and Performance $0.00 20.0% $0.00 $0.006.3 Project Management Services $0.00 20.0% $0.00 $0.006.4 Client Representation $0.00 20.0% $0.00 $0.00

Sub total $5,000.00 25.0% $1,250.00 $6,250.00 0.1%




Infrastrucutre construction Unit Quantity Rates Comment(cost per unit)

Rural (Mehi River to Newell Highway north)Length of project km 1.84 $6.48 Project cost/kmLength of lane kilomentres km 4.68 $2.55 Project cost/lane kmPavement m2 17943 $131.78 Pavement cost /m2 pavementArea of structures (bridge) - bridges m2 1410 $2,400.00 Bridge cost /m2 deck area (Mehi River bridge) - major culverts m2 1082 $1,129.57 Culvert cost/m2 deck area (creek crossings)Earthworks (cut to fill, cut to spoil, & imported fill) m3 18900 $9.26 Earthwork cost/m3 earthworksEarthworks (Select) m3 7680 $29.97Earthworks (Unsuitable) m3 1000 $43.75

Contingency

Moree_PREFERr2.XLSSheet: North Rural Sect Summary

24/04/20011 of 1

MOREE BYPASS

INDICATIVE COST ESTIMATE

BASE CASE OPTION (Gosport Street Preferred Option) - NORTHERN RURAL SECTION(Ch 1920 to Ch 3760)

Extent:

and

QUANTITIES AND RATESItem Description of Work Quantity Unit Rate Amount TotalNo. % Amount

$ $

3.0 PROPERTY ACQUISITION3.2 PROPERTY ACQUISITION COSTS

Steel Bridge Campa) Camp site 1 item 10,000.00 10,000.00 25.0% 2,500.00 12,500.00

10,000.00 2,500.00 12,500.00Gwydirfield Road

a) Gwydirfield Lot 1 DP 575425 - house fronts Gwydirfield Rd - partial 1 item 10,000.00 10,000.00 25.0% 2,500.00 12,500.00b) Torelliana Lot 1 DP 565380 - rural property - partial 1 item 10,000.00 10,000.00 25.0% 2,500.00 12,500.00c) Hifields Lot 3 DP 540123 - house fronts Gwydirfield Rd - whole 1 item 225,000.00 225,000.00 25.0% 56,250.00 281,250.00d) Long lands Lot 1 DP 535838 - rural property - house fronts Gwydirfield Rd - whole 1 item 220,000.00 220,000.00 25.0% 55,000.00 275,000.00e) Part Katanning Lot 4 DP 869679 - rural property - partial 1 item 10,000.00 10,000.00 25.0% 2,500.00 12,500.00f) Part Katanning Lot 3 DP 869679 - rural property - partial 1 item 10,000.00 10,000.00 25.0% 2,500.00 12,500.00g) Racecourse - partial 1 item 30,000.00 30,000.00 25.0% 7,500.00 37,500.00

515,000.00 128,750.00 643,750.00525,000.00 25.0% 131,250.00 656,250.00

3.3 PROPERTY RESALE CREDITSa) Hifields Lot 3 DP 540123 - rural property 1 item -157500.00 -157,500.00 -15.0% 23625.00 -133,875.00b) Long lands Lot 1 DP 535838 - rural property 1 item -154,000.00 -154,000.00 -15.0% 23100.00 -130,900.00

-311,500.00 -15.0% 46,725.00 -264,775.00

4.0 PUBLIC UTILITY ADJUSTMENTS4.1 ADJUST UTILITIES

4.1.1 Sewera) Adjust sewer manhole to match new surface. 0 no. 425.00 0.00 35.0% 0.00 0.00b) Concrete encase 150 mm dia sewer main. 0 m 365.00 0.00 35.0% 0.00 0.00c) relocate 150 mm main 0 m 310.00 0.00 35.0% 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.004.1.2 Water

a) Adjust stop valve to match new surface 3 no. 375.00 1,125.00 35.0% 393.75 1,518.75b) Adjust hydrant to match new surface 3 no. 375.00 1,125.00 35.0% 393.75 1,518.75c) Relocate house service 120 lin m 50.00 6,000.00 35.0% 2100.00 8,100.00d) Relocate 150mm main 100 lin m 201.00 20,100.00 35.0% 7035.00 27,135.00

28,350.00 9,922.50 38,272.504.1.3 Telstra

4.1.3.1 Cables & conduitsa) Protection - 2 x P100 40 lin m 150.00 6,000.00 35.0% 2100.00 8,100.00b) Relocate - Flexible Conduit 2xP100 300 lin m 50.00 15,000.00 35.0% 5250.00 20,250.00c) Adjust Manhole 2 no. 5000.00 10,000.00 35.0% 3500.00 13,500.00

31,000.00 10,850.00 41,850.004.1.3.2 Distribution

a) Adjust - Flexible Cable P50 10 lin m 25.00 250.00 35.0% 87.50 337.50b) Adjust - Junction Pits (medium size) 1 each 660.00 660.00 35.0% 231.00 891.00c) Adjust Pillar 1 Item 1000.00 1,000.00 35.0% 350.00 1,350.00

1,910.00 668.50 2,578.504.1.3.3 Supervision

a) Allow …% of Telstra Adjustments 15% item 4936.50 740.48 35.0% 259.17 999.64740.48 259.17 999.64

4.1.4 Electrical a) Relocate & adjust supply poles with LV 4 each 10000.00 40,000.00 35.0% 14000.00 54,000.00b) Relocate & adjust supply poles with HV 10 each 15000.00 150,000.00 35.0% 52500.00 202,500.00c) Relocate u/g supply conduits & cables 60 lin m 250.00 15,000.00 35.0% 5250.00 20,250.00

205,000.00 71,750.00 276,750.00267,000.48 35.0% 93,450.17 360,450.64

5.0 CONSTRUCTION5.1 INFRASTRUCTURE - GENERAL

5.1.1 Mobilisation & establishment (equally distributed over the 3 road sections)a) Establish site office 0.33 item 3,000.00 1,000.00 30.0% 300.00 1,300.00b) plumber 0.33 item 2,000.00 666.67 30.0% 200.00 866.67c) electrician 0.33 item 2,000.00 666.67 30.0% 200.00 866.67d) phone 0.33 item 500.00 166.67 30.0% 50.00 216.67e) site earthworks 0.33 item 2,000.00 666.67 30.0% 200.00 866.67f) fence 0.33 item 9,600.00 3,200.00 30.0% 960.00 4,160.00g) site offices - hire 25 week 1,000.00 25,000.00 30.0% 7500.00 32,500.00h) toilet - hire 25 week 200.00 5,000.00 30.0% 1500.00 6,500.00i) sewer pump out 25 week 450.00 11,250.00 30.0% 3375.00 14,625.00j) security 25 week 500.00 12,500.00 30.0% 3750.00 16,250.00k) phone 25 week 200.00 5,000.00 30.0% 1500.00 6,500.00l) fax 25 week 35.00 875.00 30.0% 262.50 1,137.50

m) electrical 25 week 150.00 3,750.00 30.0% 1125.00 4,875.00n) stationary 25 week 30.00 750.00 30.0% 225.00 975.00o) computer 25 week 25.00 625.00 30.0% 187.50 812.50p) rubbish removal 25 week 80.00 2,000.00 30.0% 600.00 2,600.00

73,116.67 21,935.00 95,051.67

5.1.2 Community liaison (equally distributed over the 3 road sections) 0.33 item 20,000.00 6,666.67 30.0% 2000.00 8,666.676666.67 2000.00 8666.67

5.1.3 Management Plans - environmental, earthworks, traffic, OH&S, QA (15 no. for project distributed over the 3 road sections) 5 each 10,000.00 50,000.00 30.0% 15000.00 65,000.00

50000.00 15000.00 65000.00

5.1.4 Traffic Controla) Control 0.33 item 15,000.00 5,000.00 30.0% 1500.00 6,500.00

Contingency

This section extends from the southern side of the Mehi River to Newell Highway north

comprises a two lane rural section from the Mehi River to the Newell Highway, a priority controlled Tee intersection at the highway, relocation of the Gwydirfield Road, access to the Steel Bridge camp site, a bridge crossing over the Mehi River and culvert crossings over the local floodplain depressions and Skinners Creek.

Moree_PREFERr2.XLSSheet: North Rural Sect Detail Est

24/04/20011 of 5

b) Temporary signs 52 each 180.00 9,360.00 30.0% 2808.00 12,168.00c) Install temporary barriers 230 lin m 180.00 41,400.00 30.0% 12420.00 53,820.00d) Remove temporary barriers 230 lin m 6.50 1,495.00 30.0% 448.50 1,943.50e) Mesh fence 1040 lin m 4.00 4,160.00 30.0% 1248.00 5,408.00f) Provide temporary access at driveways 8 each 1,000.00 8,000.00 30.0% 2400.00 10,400.00

69,415.00 20,824.50 90,239.50199,198.33 30.0% 59,759.50 258,957.83

5.2 INFRASTRUCTURE - ENVIRONMENTAL5.2.1 Environmental protection

5.2.1.1 Building condition inspectionsa) Gwydirfield Lot 1 DP 575425 - rural property - house fronts Gwydirfield Rd 2 each 300.00 600.00 20.0% 120.00 720.00b) Torelliana Lot 1 DP 565380 - rural property 2 each 300.00 600.00 20.0% 120.00 720.00c) Part Katanning Lot 4 DP 869679 - rural property 2 each 300.00 600.00 20.0% 120.00 720.00d) Part Katanning Lot 3 DP 869679 - rural property 2 each 300.00 600.00 20.0% 120.00 720.00e) Racecourse 2 each 1,000.00 2,000.00 20.0% 400.00 2,400.00f) TSR Stormont Lot 5 DP 864063 - rural 2 each 300.00 600.00 20.0% 120.00 720.00e) Newell Hwy, 4 each 300.00 1,200.00 20.0% 240.00 1,440.00

6,200.00 1,240.00 7,440.005.2.1.2 Site monitoring

(distributed over the 3 road sections)a) Noise 0.33 item 13,500.00 4,500.00 25.0% 1125.00 5,625.00b) Ground vibration 0.33 item 13,500.00 4,500.00 25.0% 1125.00 5,625.00c) Air pollution 0.33 item 2,500.00 833.33 25.0% 208.33 1,041.67d) Water quality 0.33 item 5,000.00 1,666.67 25.0% 416.67 2,083.33e) Vegetation protection 0.33 item 4,000.00 1,333.33 25.0% 333.33 1,666.67f) Fauna inspections 1 item 8,000.00 8,000.00 25.0% 2000.00 10,000.00g) Heritage - aboriginal 0.67 item 5,000.00 3,333.33 25.0% 833.33 4,166.67

24,166.67 6,041.67 30,208.335.2.2 Erosion & sedimentation control

5.2.2.1 Temporary sediment control basinsa) Earthworks for sedimentation control basins 80 cu m 30.00 2,400.00 25.0% 600.00 3,000.00b) Inlets, spillways for sedimentation control basins 2 each 300.00 600.00 25.0% 150.00 750.00c) Removal of sedimentation control structures 2 item 150.00 300.00 25.0% 75.00 375.00

3,300.00 825.00 4,125.005.2.2.2 Treat contaminated water & discharge water

a) sediment control structures 2 item 400.00 800.00 25.0% 200.00 1,000.00800.00 200.00 1,000.00

5.2.2.3 Other temporary worksa) Installation & removal temporary drains and dykes 500 lin m 6.00 3,000.00 25.0% 750.00 3,750.00b) installation & removal Silt fencing 350 lin m 7.00 2,450.00 25.0% 612.50 3,062.50c) Hay bale silt traps 40 each 30.00 1,200.00 25.0% 300.00 1,500.00

6,650.00 1,662.50 8,312.505.2.2.4 Maintenance

a) Temporary sedimentation control basins 3 each 210.00 630.00 25.0% 157.50 787.50b) Temporary drains 2 item 400.00 800.00 25.0% 200.00 1,000.00c) Silt fencing 2 item 400.00 800.00 25.0% 200.00 1,000.00d) Hay bale silt traps 50 each 100.00 5,000.00 25.0% 1250.00 6,250.00

7,230.00 1,807.50 9,037.505.2.3 Permanent Sediment/Chemical Spillage Control Basins

a) Earthworks for sedimentation control basins 400 cu m 45.00 18,000.00 25.0% 4500.00 22,500.00b) Inlets, spillways for sedimentation control basins 8 item 1200.00 9,600.00 25.0% 2400.00 12,000.00c) Cleaning of sedimentation control structures 8 item 1,000.00 8,000.00 25.0% 2000.00 10,000.00

35,600.00 8,900.00 44,500.0083,946.67 24.6% 20,676.67 104,623.33

5.3 INFRASTRUCTURE - NOISE MITIGATION5.3.1 Properties

a) Gwydirfield Lot 1 DP 575425 - rural property (thick glazing, aircon) 1 item 15,000.00 15,000.00 20.0% 3000.00 18,000.00b) Torelliana Lot 1 DP 565380 - rural property (thick glazing) 0 item 5,000.00 0.00 20.0% 0.00 0.00c) Part Katanning Lot 4 DP 869679 - rural property (thick glazing) 0 item 5,000.00 0.00 20.0% 0.00 0.00

15,000.00 20.0% 3,000.00 18,000.005.4 INFRASTRUCTURE - FLOOD MITIGATION

5.4.1 Properties5.4.1.1 Gwydirfield Lot 1 DP 575425 - rural property

a) Install earth bund 1 item 20,000.00 20,000.00 30.0% 6000.00 26,000.0020,000.00 6,000.00 26,000.00

5.4.1.2 Torelliana Lot 1 DP 565380 - rural property a) Install earth bund 0 item 30,000.00 0.00 30.0% 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.005.4.1.3 Part Katanning Lot 4 DP 869679 - rural property

a) Install earth bund 0 item 30,000.00 0.00 30.0% 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00

20,000.00 30.0% 6,000.00 26,000.005.5 INFRASTRUCTURE - EARTHWORKS

5.5.1 Grubbing & clearinga) Tree removal 20 each 200.00 4,000.00 25.0% 1000.00 5,000.00b) Wood chip mulching to stockpile 10 cu m 8.00 80.00 25.0% 20.00 100.00c) Disused pipe systems 0 lin m 50.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00d) Disused watermain 0 lin m 40.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00e) Disused sewer 0 lin m 40.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00f) Abandoned footpath 0 sq m 15.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00g) Salvage, haul, stockpile abandoned road pavement:

Gwydirfield Road 450 cu m 6.10 2,745.00 25.0% 686.25 3,431.25h) Strip & dispose abandoned road surface course 3000 sq m 6.10 18,300.00 25.0% 4575.00 22,875.00j) Abandoned pits 0 each 2.50 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00j) Abandoned headwall 0 each 1,000.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00k) Abandoned kerb 0 lin m 500.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00

25,125.00 6,281.25 31,406.255.5.2 Topsoil

a) Strip, haul, stockpile topsoil for future use 4394 cu m 5.00 21,970.00 30.0% 6591.00 28,561.0021,970.00 6,591.00 28,561.00

5.5.3 General earthworksa) cut to fill 16550 cu m 6.00 99,300.00 25.0% 24825.00 124,125.00b) stockpile to fill (woolstore to north of river) 0 cu m 15.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00c) cut to spoil off site 1250 cu m 15.00 18,750.00 25.0% 4687.50 23,437.50d) Import fill 1100 cu m 20.00 22,000.00 25.0% 5500.00 27,500.00e) Unsuitable ground material (excavate, haul, dispose & import, place select fill) 1000 cu m 35.00 35,000.00 25.0% 8750.00 43,750.00

19900 175,050.00 43,762.50 218,812.505.5.4 Select material

a) Select material in select material zone (stripped road base from stockpile) 450 cu m 7.50 3,375.00 25.0% 843.75 4,218.75b) Select material in select material zone (imported) 7230 cu m 25.00 180,750.00 25.0% 45187.50 225,937.50

184,125.00 46,031.25 230,156.255.5.5 Fabric

a) Geotextile supply and installation (subgrade, sub-pavement drains) 0 sq m 4.50 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00b) Geogrid supply and installation (PQ) 100 sq m 7.50 750.00 25.0% 187.50 937.50

750.00 187.50 937.505.5.6 Dewatering


24/04/20012 of 5

a) Dewatering 1 item 500.00 500.00 25.0% 125.00 625.00500.00 125.00 625.00

407,520.00 25.3% 102,978.50 510,498.50

5.6 INFRASTRUCTURE - DRAINAGE5.6.1 Excavation

a) Excavation for stormwater drainage structures 420 cu m 6.00 2,520.00 25.0% 630.00 3,150.00b) Excavation for open drains 1980 cu m 9.00 17,820.00 25.0% 4455.00 22,275.00c) Unsuitable ground excavation and replacement 10 cu m 40.00 400.00 25.0% 100.00 500.00

20,740.00 5,185.00 25,925.005.6.2 Precast reinforced concrete pipes

a) 375 diam RRJ Cl 3 100 lin m 140.00 14,000.00 25.0% 3500.00 17,500.00b) 450 diam RRJ Cl 3 100 lin m 175.00 17,500.00 25.0% 4375.00 21,875.00c) 525 diam RRJ Cl 3 0 lin m 200.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00d) 600 diam RRJ Cl 3 0 lin m 230.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00e) 675 diam RRJ Cl 3 0 lin m 280.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00f) 750 diam RRJ Cl 3 0 lin m 320.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00g) 900 diam RRJ Cl 3 0 lin m 525.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00h) 1050 diam RRJ Cl 3 0 lin m 600.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00i) 1200 diam RRJ Cl 3 0 lin m 925.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00

200 31,500.00 7,875.00 39,375.005.6.3 Minor concrete box culverts

a) 300 x 600 RCBC 50 lin m 330.00 16,500.00 25.0% 4125.00 20,625.00b) 300 x 1200 RCBC 0 lin m 660.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00c) 300 x 1500 RCBC 0 lin m 830.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00d) 450 x 1200 RCBC 0 lin m 720.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00e) 450 x 1500 RCBC 35 lin m 900.00 31,500.00 25.0% 7875.00 39,375.00f) 600 x 1800 RCBC 0 lin m 1260.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00

85 48,000.00 12,000.00 60,000.005.6.4 Drainage pits

a) kerb inlet, heavy duty lintels (pipes) 11 each 2,700.00 29,700.00 25.0% 7425.00 37,125.00b) kerb inlet, heavy duty lintels (culverts) 4 each 8,000.00 32,000.00 25.0% 8000.00 40,000.00c) junction pit, heavy duty cover 0 each 2,700.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00d) grated pit 1 each 2,500.00 2,500.00 25.0% 625.00 3,125.00

64,200.00 16,050.00 80,250.005.6.5 Minor concrete headwalls

5.6.5.1 Inleta) 450 diam 1 each 750 750.00 25.0% 187.50 937.50b) 750 diam 0 each 1000 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00c) 1050 diam 0 each 1500 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00

750.00 187.50 937.505.6.5.2 Outlet

a) 450 diam 1 each 750 750.00 25.0% 187.50 937.50b) 750 diam 0 each 1000 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00c) 1050 diam 0 each 1500 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00d) 1200 diam 0 each 2500 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00

750.00 187.50 937.505.6.6 Open drains

a) Concrete lining 200 lin m 60.00 12,000.00 25.0% 3000.00 15,000.0012,000.00 3,000.00 15,000.00

5.6.7 Minor rockfilled gabions & matressesa) 300mm rockfilled matress 24 sq m 65.00 1,560.00 25.0% 390.00 1,950.00

1,560.00 390.00 1,950.00179,500.00 25.0% 44,875.00 224,375.00

5.7 INFRASTRUCTURE - PAVEMENT5.7.1 Lean-mix concrete subbase

a) 175mm lean mix subbase 3140 cu m 160.00 502,400.00 20.0% 100480.00 602,880.00b) finish & cure 17943 sq m 0.70 12,560.00 20.0% 2512.00 15,072.00

514,960.00 102,992.00 617,952.005.7.2 Asphalt

a) 150 mm (2x75) DG 20 6270 tonne 160.00 1,003,200.00 20.0% 200640.00 1,203,840.00b) 50 mm DG 14 2380 tonne 180.00 428,400.00 20.0% 85680.00 514,080.00c) 50 mm min. DG 14 overlay, variable correction + wearing (80mm average) 40 tonne 200.00 8,000.00 25.0% 2000.00 10,000.00

1,439,600.00 288,320.00 1,727,920.005.7.3 Cold milling

a) Gwydir Hwy 30 lin m 12.00 360.00 25.0% 90.00 450.00360.00 90.00 450.00

5.7.4 Subgrade & sub-pavement drainagea) 100 mm subsoil & filter backfill 450 lin m 30.00 13,500.00 25.0% 3375.00 16,875.00b) cleanouts & inspection covers 10 each 100.00 1,000.00 25.0% 250.00 1,250.00

14,500.00 3,625.00 18,125.001,969,420.00 20.1% 395,027.00 2,364,447.00

5.8 INFRASTRUCTURE - STRUCTURES5.8.1 Bridges

5.8.1.1 Mehi River Bridge 1410 sq m 2000.00 2,820,000.00 20.0% 564000.00 3,384,000.002,820,000.00 564,000.00 3,384,000.00

5.8.2 Major culvertsa) Culvert at two depressions 260 sq m 800.00 208,000.00 25.0% 52000.00 260,000.00b) Skinners Creek 790 sq m 800.00 632,000.00 25.0% 158000.00 790,000.00c) Extend existing Skinners Creek Newell Highway culvert 32 sq m 1500.00 48,000.00 25.0% 12000.00 60,000.00d) Scour protection (300mm rockfilled matress) 715 sq m 65.00 46,475.00 25.0% 11618.75 58,093.75e) 75mm AC surface 1082 sq m 40.00 43,280.00 25.0% 10820.00 54,100.00

977,755.00 244,438.75 1,222,193.75

5.8.3 Reinforced soil walls5.8.3.1 Design

a) Supplier design 15% item 16500.00 2,475.00 20.0% 495.00 2,970.002,475.00 495.00 2,970.00

5.8.3.2 Constructionb) Supply and installation 400 sq m 275.00 110,000.00 20.0% 22000.00 132,000.00

110,000.00 22,000.00 132,000.005.8.4 Retaining walls

a) Wall #1 0 sq m 300.00 0.00 20.0% 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00

3,910,230.00 21.3% 830,933.75 4,741,163.75

5.9 INFRASTRUCTURE - LOCAL ROADS

5.9.1 Gwydirfield Roada) Construct new link 2400 sq m 150.00 360,000.00 40.0% 144000.00 504,000.00

360,000.00 144,000.00 504,000.005.9.2 Webb Avenue

a) Terminate avenue 1 Item 20,000.00 20,000.00 25.0% 5000.00 25,000.0020,000.00 5,000.00 25,000.00


24/04/20013 of 5

5.9.3 Steel Camp sitea) Access 1 Item 20,000.00 20,000.00 25.0% 5000.00 25,000.00

20,000.00 5,000.00 25,000.00400,000.00 38.5% 154,000.00 554,000.00

5.10 INFRASTRUCTURE - URBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPING5.10.1 Urban design

5.10.1.1 Steel Camp sitea) Steel Camp mural 1 Item 10,000.00 10,000.00 20.0% 2000.00 12,000.00

10,000.00 2,000.00 12,000.005.10.1.2 Northern entry

a) Entry statement 1 Item 5,000.00 5,000.00 20.0% 1000.00 6,000.005,000.00 1,000.00 6,000.00

5.10.2 Landscaping5.10.2.1 Northern entry

a) site preparation 1000 sq m 1.00 1,000.00 20.0% 200.00 1,200.00b) advanced stock 100 each 50.00 5,000.00 20.0% 1000.00 6,000.00c) maintain 1 item 600.00 600.00 20.0% 120.00 720.00d) obtain mulch from stockpile and spread 1000 sq m 5.50 5,500.00 20.0% 1100.00 6,600.00

12,100.00 2,420.00 14,520.005.10.2.2 Racecourse

a) site preparation 3500 sq m 1.00 3,500.00 20.0% 700.00 4,200.00b) advanced stock 300 each 50.00 15,000.00 20.0% 3000.00 18,000.00b) tube stock 1000 each 5.00 5,000.00 20.0% 1000.00 6,000.00c) maintain 1 item 600.00 600.00 20.0% 120.00 720.00d) obtain mulch from stockpile and spread 3500 sq m 5.50 19,250.00 20.0% 3850.00 23,100.00

43,350.00 8,670.00 52,020.0070,450.00 20.0% 14,090.00 84,540.00

5.11 INFRASTRUCTURE - MISCELLANEOUS5.11.1 Demolition

a) Hifields Lot 3 DP 540123 - residence 1 item 10,000.00 10,000.00 25.0% 2500.00 12,500.00b) Long lands Lot 1 DP 535838 - residence 1 item 10,000.00 10,000.00 25.0% 2500.00 12,500.00

20,000.00 5,000.00 25,000.005.11.2 Minor concrete works

a) island infill (include bedding, feature surface treatment) 200 sq m 50.00 10,000.00 20.0% 2000.00 12,000.00b) SA kerb 0 lin m 45.00 0.00 20.0% 0.00 0.00c) SF kerb 145 lin m 25.00 3,625.00 20.0% 725.00 4,350.00

13,625.00 2,725.00 16,350.005.11.3 UPVC ducts

a) 150 mm conduit 150 lin m 30.00 4,500.00 20.0% 900.00 5,400.004,500.00 900.00 5,400.00

5.11.4 Road furniture, marking & signposting5.11.4.1 Guide posts

a) guide posts 82 each 30.00 2,460.00 20.0% 492.00 2,952.002,460.00 492.00 2,952.00

5.11.4.2 Safety barriersa) steel guard fence 1300 lin m 85.00 110,500.00 30.0% 33150.00 143,650.00

110,500.00 33,150.00 143,650.005.11.4.3 Pavement marking

a) edge line (paint) 4080 lin m 1.50 6,120.00 20.0% 1224.00 7,344.00b) barrier line 200 lin m 2.50 500.00 20.0% 100.00 600.00c) continuous line 200 lin m 1.80 360.00 20.0% 72.00 432.00d) broken line 1840 lin m 1.20 2,208.00 20.0% 441.60 2,649.60e) chevrons 250 sq m 75.00 18,750.00 20.0% 3750.00 22,500.00

27,938.00 5,587.60 33,525.605.11.4.4 Pavement markers

a) raised pavement markers 319 each 8.00 2,552.00 20.0% 510.40 3,062.402,552.00 510.40 3,062.40

5.11.4.5 Signpostinga) advance directional 3 each 30000.00 90,000.00 20.0% 18000.00 108,000.00b) directional 3 each 15000.00 45,000.00 20.0% 9000.00 54,000.00c) directional small 4 each 1000.00 4,000.00 20.0% 800.00 4,800.00d) warning 16 each 200.00 3,200.00 20.0% 640.00 3,840.00e) hazard boards 6 each 250.00 1,500.00 20.0% 300.00 1,800.00

143,700.00 28,740.00 172,440.005.11.5 Street lighting

5.11.5.1 Newell Highway north intersectiona) Supply & lay UPVC Conduit/Cable 700 lin m 30.00 21,000.00 20.0% 4200.00 25,200.00b) cable pits 8 each 200.00 1,600.00 20.0% 320.00 1,920.00c) control cabinet 1 each 9500.00 9,500.00 20.0% 1900.00 11,400.00d) Concrete plinth for light column 24 each 1000.00 24,000.00 20.0% 4800.00 28,800.00e) Lighting column and fittings 24 each 1500.00 36,000.00 20.0% 7200.00 43,200.00

92,100.00 18,420.00 110,520.005.11.6 Fencing

a) rural boundary fence 600 lin m 30.00 18,000.00 15.0% 2700.00 20,700.0018,000.00 2,700.00 20,700.00

5.11.7 Vegetationa) spray weeds with herbicide 1000 sq m 0.50 500.00 20.0% 100.00 600.00b) Load, haul, place topsoil on verges 18400 sq m 2.50 46,000.00 20.0% 9200.00 55,200.00c) hydroseeding 18400 sq m 0.50 9,200.00 20.0% 1840.00 11,040.00d) straw mulch 18400 sq m 0.30 5,520.00 20.0% 1104.00 6,624.00e) spray with bitumen 18400 sq m 0.50 9,200.00 20.0% 1840.00 11,040.00f) lining with jute mesh 100 lin m 3.50 350.00 20.0% 70.00 420.00g) watering 1 item 1600.00 1,600.00 20.0% 320.00 1,920.00

72,370.00 14,474.00 86,844.00507,745.00 22.2% 112,699.00 620,444.00

5.11.8 Property adjustment works5.11.8.1 Gwydirfield Lot 1 DP 575425 - house fronts Gwydirfield Rd

a) Construct driveway 1 item 1,000.00 1,000.00 25.0% 250.00 1,250.00b) Construct rural fence 230 lin m 30.00 6,900.00 20.0% 1380.00 8,280.00c) Install gate 1 each 250.00 250.00 20.0% 50.00 300.00

8,150.00 1,680.00 9,830.00

5.11.8.2 Torelliana Lot 1 DP 565380 - rural property a) Construct driveway 1 item 1,000.00 1,000.00 25.0% 250.00 1,250.00b) Construct rural fence 20 lin m 30.00 600.00 20.0% 120.00 720.00c) Install gate 1 each 250.00 250.00 20.0% 50.00 300.00

1,850.00 420.00 2,270.005.11.8.3 Hifields Lot 3 DP 540123 - house fronts Gwydirfield Rd - whole


10,550.00 2,160.00 12,710.005.11.8.4 Long lands Lot 1 DP 535838 - rural property - fronts Gwydirfield Rd - whole

a) Construct driveway 1 item 1,000.00 1,000.00 25.0% 250.00 1,250.00b) Construct rural fence 190 lin m 30.00 5,700.00 20.0% 1140.00 6,840.00


24/04/20014 of 5

c) Install gate 1 each 250.00 250.00 20.0% 50.00 300.006,950.00 1,440.00 8,390.00

5.11.8.5 Part Katanning Lot 4 DP 869679 - rural property - partiala) Construct driveway 1 item 1,000.00 1,000.00 25.0% 250.00 1,250.00b) Construct rural fence 360 lin m 30.00 10,800.00 20.0% 2160.00 12,960.00c) Install gate 1 each 250.00 250.00 20.0% 50.00 300.00

12,050.00 2,460.00 14,510.005.11.8.6 Part Katanning Lot 3 DP 869679 - rural property - partial


4,250.00 900.00 5,150.005.11.8.7 TSR Stormont Lot 5 DP 864063 - rural

a) Construct driveway 0 item 1,000.00 0.00 20.0% 0.00 0.00b) Construct rural fence 0 lin m 30.00 0.00 20.0% 0.00 0.00c) Install gate 0 each 250.00 0.00 20.0% 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.005.11.8.8 Newell Hwy frontage properties

a) Construct driveway 2 item 1,000.00 2,000.00 20.0% 400.00 2,400.002,000.00 400.00 2,400.00

5.11.8.9 Racecourse - partiala) Relocate shed 1 item 2,000.00 2,000.00 20.0% 400.00 2,400.00b) Construct rural fence 100 lin m 30.00 3,000.00 20.0% 600.00 3,600.00c) Install gate 1 each 250.00 250.00 20.0% 50.00 300.00

5,250.00 1,050.00 6,300.00Sub total 5.11.8 51,050.00 20.6% 10,510.00 61,560.00

558,795.00 22.0% 123,209.00 682,004.00

6.0 HANDOVERa) Modify signage 1 item 5,000.00 5,000.00 25.0% 1250.00 6,250.00

5,000.00 25.0% 1,250.00 6,250.00


24/04/20015 of 5

MOREE BYPASS

BASE CASE OPTION (Gosport Street Preferred Option) - Northern Urban Section

Northern Urban Section Estimate Summary(Ch 1020 to Ch 1920)




Sub total $406,666.67 28.0% $113,866.67 $520,533.33 4.3%


Sub total $146,000.00 28.0% $40,880.00 $186,880.00 1.5%

3.0 Property Acquisitions3.1 Professional Services for property $16,666.67 28% $4,666.67 $21,333.333.2 Property Acquisition Costs $1,767,000.00 25.0% $441,750.00 $2,208,750.003.3 Property Resale Credits -$20,000.00 -15.0% $3,000.00 -$17,000.003.4 Project Management Services $16,666.67 28% $4,666.67 $21,333.333.5 Client Representation $1,666.67 28% $466.67 $2,133.33

Sub total $1,782,000.00 25.5% $454,550.00 $2,236,550.00 18.5%

4.0 Public Utility Adjustments4.1 Adjust Utilities $600,818.93 35.0% $210,286.62 $811,105.554.2 Project Management Services $60,081.89 35.0% $21,028.66 $81,110.554.3 Client Representation $6,008.19 35.0% $2,102.87 $8,111.06

Sub total $666,909.01 35.0% $233,418.15 $900,327.16 7.5%

5.0 Construction5.1 Infrastructure - General $220,983.33 30.0% $66,295.00 $287,278.335.2 Infrastructure - Environmental $117,420.00 25.0% $29,355.00 $146,775.005.3 Infrastructure - Noise Mitigation $445,400.00 20.0% $89,080.00 $534,480.005.4 Infrastructure - Flood Mitigation $0.00 20.0% $0.00 $0.005.5 Infrastructure - Earthworks $256,778.00 25.2% $64,599.50 $321,377.505.6 Infrastructure - Drainage $1,260,500.00 25.0% $314,525.00 $1,575,025.005.7 Infrastructure - Pavement $1,875,980.00 20.1% $376,339.00 $2,252,319.005.8 Infrastructure - Structures $382,104.00 25.0% $95,526.00 $477,630.005.9 Infrastructure - Local Roads $220,000.00 15.0% $33,000.00 $253,000.005.10 Infrastructure - Urban Design & Landscaping $216,000.00 19.7% $42,600.00 $258,600.005.11 Infrastructure - Miscellaneous $1,209,655.00 21.1% $254,831.00 $1,464,486.005.12 Infrastructure - Site Management $372,289.22 25% $93,072.31 $465,361.535.13 Project Management Services $124,096.41 25% $31,024.10 $155,120.515.14 Client Representation $12,409.64 25% $3,102.41 $15,512.05

Sub total $6,713,615.60 22.2% $1,493,349.32 $8,206,964.92 68.1%

6.0 Handover6.1 Existing signage $5,000.00 25.0% $1,250.00 $6,250.006.2 Project Data and Performance $0.00 20.0% $0.00 $0.006.3 Project Management Services $0.00 20.0% $0.00 $0.006.4 Client Representation $0.00 20.0% $0.00 $0.00

Sub total $5,000.00 25.0% $1,250.00 $6,250.00 0.1%




Infrastructure construction Unit Quantity Rates Comment(cost per unit)

Urban (Spa Baths to Mehi River) Length of project km 0.9 $13.40 Project cost/kmLength of lane kilomentres km 3.08 $3.92 Project cost/lane kmPavement m2 18171 $123.95 Pavement cost /m2 pavementArea of structures - bridges m2 0 $0.00 Bridge cost /m2 deck area (Mehi River bridge) - major culverts m2 255 $477,630.00 Culvert cost/m2 deck area (creek crossings)Earthworks (cut to fill) m3 7600 $7.50 Earthwork cost/m3 earthworksEarthworks (Select) m3 5460 $30.05Earthworks (Unsuitable) m3 1000 $43.75

Contingency

Moree_PREFERr2.XLSSheet North Urban Sect Summary

24/04/20011 of 1

MOREE BYPASS

INDICATIVE COST ESTIMATE

BASE CASE OPTION (Gosport Street Preferred Option) - NORTHERN URBAN SECTION(Ch 1020 to Ch 1920)

Extent:This section extends from the Spa Baths to the southern side of the Mehi River

and is of a new bypass construction comprising two through traffic lanes with shoulders either side, separate right and shared left turn lanes at the Gwydir Highway intersection, upgrading of the Gwydir Hwy to accommodate combined rail and road/pedestrian traffic signals, linking of Gosport Street to Anne Street, linking of River/Morton Streets, linking of Morton St to the Oak St lane,and relocation of the railway station and entry to the Morton Street side.

QUANTITIES AND RATESItem Description of Work Quantity Unit Rate Amount TotalNo. % Amount

$ $

3.0 PROPERTY ACQUISITION3.2 PROPERTY ACQUISITION COSTS

Gosport StH1 Lot 1 DP855832 R & P Bussell - commercial 1 item 500,000.00 500,000.00 25.0% 125,000.00 625,000.00H2 Lot E DP 363918 K & T Bella - residential 1 item 130,000.00 130,000.00 25.0% 32,500.00 162,500.00H3 Lot D DP 363918 HRM QE2 Police Dept - residential 1 item 100,000.00 100,000.00 25.0% 25,000.00 125,000.00H4 Lot 3 DP 667744 K & G Berger - residential 1 item 50,000.00 50,000.00 25.0% 12,500.00 62,500.00H5 Lot 3 DP 664162 D Berger - residential 1 item 100,000.00 100,000.00 25.0% 25,000.00 125,000.00H6 Lot B DP 356257 K & G Berger - residential 1 item 130,000.00 130,000.00 25.0% 32,500.00 162,500.00H7 Lot A DP 356257 M Berger - residential 1 item 90,000.00 90,000.00 25.0% 22,500.00 112,500.00H8 Lot 5 Sec 31 DP 758706 K & G Berger - residential 1 item 120,000.00 120,000.00 25.0% 30,000.00 150,000.00

River StreetH12 Lot A DP 373511 K Mead - residential 1 item 90,000.00 90,000.00 25.0% 22,500.00 112,500.00H13 Lot B DP 373511 E Smith - residential 1 item 100,000.00 100,000.00 25.0% 25,000.00 125,000.00H14 Lot 1 DP839694 Aboriginal Corp - residential 1 item 100,000.00 100,000.00 25.0% 25,000.00 125,000.00F1 Showground 1 item 10,000.00 10,000.00 25.0% 2,500.00 12,500.00

Morton StreetD1 Lot 2 DP 600610 Jonenderbee Investments P/L - former Woolstore 1 item 20,000.00 20,000.00 25.0% 5,000.00 25,000.00

Rail PropertyM1 RAC - Austrac lease (partial) 1 each 20,000.00 20,000.00 25.0% 5000.00 25,000.00M2 Lot 82 DP 1006136 RSA - former booking office (partial) 1 each 20,000.00 20,000.00 25.0% 5000.00 25,000.00M6 RAC/RSA (both sides of station - Gosport & Morton St frontages) (partial) 1 each 50,000.00 50,000.00 25.0% 12500.00 62,500.00M3 Lot 81 DP 1006136 RSA - workshop & tennis courts (entire) 1 each 60,000.00 60,000.00 25.0% 15000.00 75,000.00H16 Lot 6 DP 836431 - SRA rail corridor (partial) 1 item 1,000.00 1,000.00 25.0% 250.00 1,250.00H15 Lot 8 DP 825743 SRA - residential 1 item 50,000.00 50,000.00 25.0% 12,500.00 62,500.00

Rail corridor (opp. Cnr River/Morton Sts) 1 item 1,000.00 1,000.00 25.0% 250.00 1,250.00Lot 5 DP 845620 SRA - rail corridor 1 item 1,000.00 1,000.00 25.0% 250.00 1,250.00Lot 4 DP 845620 SRA - rail corridor 1 item 1,000.00 1,000.00 25.0% 250.00 1,250.00Lot 3 DP 829660 SRA - rail corridor - Woolstore siding 1 item 20,000.00 20,000.00 25.0% 5,000.00 25,000.00

E1 Lot 3 DP 845620 SRA - residential lease - Mrs Samson 1 item 1,000.00 1,000.00 25.0% 250.00 1,250.00Lot 2 DP 845620 SRA - rail corridor 1 item 1,000.00 1,000.00 25.0% 250.00 1,250.00Lot 1 DP 845620 SRA - rail corridor 1 item 1,000.00 1,000.00 25.0% 250.00 1,250.00

1,767,000.00 25.0% 441,750.00 2,208,750.003.3 PROPERTY RESALE CREDITSa) Lot 81 DP 1006136 RSA - workshop & tennis courts (entire) 0 each -42,000.00 0.00 -25.0% 0.00 0.00b) Lot 3 DP 829660 SRA - rail corridor - Woolstore siding 1 item -20,000.00 -20,000.00 -15.0% 3,000.00 -17,000.00c) Lot 1 DP855832 R 7 P Russell - commercial 0 item -150,000.00 0.00 -15.0% 0.00 0.00d) Lot E DP 363918 K & T Bella - residence 0 item -65,000.00 0.00 -15.0% 0.00 0.00e) Lot D DP 363918 HRM QE2 Police Dept - residence 0 item -50,000.00 0.00 -15.0% 0.00 0.00f) Lot 3 DP 667744 K & G Berger - residence 0 item -25,000.00 0.00 -15.0% 0.00 0.00g) Lot 3 DP 664162 D Berger - residence 0 item -50,000.00 0.00 -15.0% 0.00 0.00h) Lot B DP 356257 K & G Berger - residence 0 item -65,000.00 0.00 -15.0% 0.00 0.00i) Lot A DP 356257 M Berger - residence 0 item -45,000.00 0.00 -15.0% 0.00 0.00j) Lot 5 Sec 31 DP 758706 K & G Berger - residual residential block 0 item -30,000.00 0.00 -15.0% 0.00 0.00

-20,000.00 -15.0% 3,000.00 -17,000.00

4.0 PUBLIC UTILITY ADJUSTMENTS4.1 ADJUST UTILITIES

4.1.1 Sewera) Adjust sewer manhole to match new surface. 3 each 425.00 1,275.00 35.0% 446.25 1,721.25b) Concrete encase 150 mm dia sewer main. 90 m 365.00 32,850.00 35.0% 11497.50 44,347.50c) Relocate 150 mm main 365 m 310.00 113,150.00 35.0% 39602.50 152,752.50d) Disconnect house service 11 each 250.00 2,750.00 35.0% 962.50 3,712.50e) Construct manhole 6 each 5,000.00 30,000.00 35.0% 10500.00 40,500.00f) Disconnect house service 11 each 250.00 2,750.00 35.0% 962.50 3,712.50g) Install house connection 1 each 250.00 250.00 35.0% 87.50 337.50h) Remove abandoned pipe 340 m 50.00 17,000.00 35.0% 5950.00 22,950.00

200,025.00 70,008.75 270,033.754.1.2 Water

a) Adjust stop valve to match new surface 3 each 375.00 1,125.00 35.0% 393.75 1,518.75b) Adjust hydrant to match new surface 3 each 375.00 1,125.00 35.0% 393.75 1,518.75c) Disconnect house service 11 each 250.00 2,750.00 35.0% 962.50 3,712.50d) Relocate house service 30 lin m 50.00 1,500.00 35.0% 525.00 2,025.00e) Remove & relocate main 185 m 201.00 37,185.00 35.0% 13014.75 50,199.75f) Concrete encase main. 130 m 365.00 47,450.00 35.0% 16607.50 64,057.50

91,135.00 31,897.25 123,032.254.1.3 Telstra

4.1.3.1 Cables & conduitsa) Protection - 2 x P100 60 lin m 150.00 9,000.00 35.0% 3150.00 12,150.00b) Relocate - Flexible Conduit 2xP100 70 lin m 50.00 3,500.00 35.0% 1225.00 4,725.00c) Adjust Manhole 5 no. 5,000.00 25,000.00 35.0% 8750.00 33,750.00d) Disconnect house service 11 each 250.00 2,750.00 35.0% 962.50 3,712.50e) Connect house service 1 each 250.00 250.00 35.0% 87.50 337.50

40,500.00 14,175.00 54,675.004.1.3.2 Distribution

a) Adjust - Flexible Cable P50 50 lin m 25.00 1,250.00 35.0% 437.50 1,687.50b) Adjust - Junction Pits (medium size) 3 each 660.00 1,980.00 35.0% 693.00 2,673.00c) Adjust Pillar 2 Item 1,000.00 2,000.00 35.0% 700.00 2,700.00

5,230.00 1,830.50 7,060.504.1.3.3 Supervision

a) Allow …% of Telstra Adjustments 15% item 6,859.50 1,028.93 35.0% 360.12 1,389.05

Contingency

Moree_PREFERr2.XLSSheet: North Urban Sect Detail Est

24/04/20011 of 6

1,028.93 360.12 1,389.054.1.4 Electrical

a) Relocate & adjust supply poles with LV 5 each 10,000.00 50,000.00 35.0% 17500.00 67,500.00b) Relocate & adjust supply poles with HV 13 each 15,000.00 195,000.00 35.0% 68250.00 263,250.00c) Relocate u/g supply conduits & cables 65 lin m 250.00 16,250.00 35.0% 5687.50 21,937.50d) Disconnect house service 11 each 150.00 1,650.00 35.0% 577.50 2,227.50

262,900.00 92,015.00 354,915.00600,818.93 35.0% 210,286.62 811,105.55

5.0 CONSTRUCTION5.1 INFRASTRUCTURE - GENERAL

5.1.1 Mobilisation & establishment (distributed equally over the 3 road sections)a) Establish site office 0.33 item 3,000.00 1,000.00 30.0% 300.00 1,300.00b) plumber 0.33 item 2,000.00 666.67 30.0% 200.00 866.67c) electrician 0.33 item 2,000.00 666.67 30.0% 200.00 866.67d) phone 0.33 item 500.00 166.67 30.0% 50.00 216.67e) site earthworks 0.33 item 2,000.00 666.67 30.0% 200.00 866.67f) fence 0.33 item 9,600.00 3,200.00 30.0% 960.00 4,160.00g) site offices - hire 25 week 1,000.00 25,000.00 30.0% 7500.00 32,500.00h) toilet - hire 25 week 200.00 5,000.00 30.0% 1500.00 6,500.00i) sewer pump out 25 week 450.00 11,250.00 30.0% 3375.00 14,625.00j) security 25 week 500.00 12,500.00 30.0% 3750.00 16,250.00k) phone 25 week 200.00 5,000.00 30.0% 1500.00 6,500.00l) fax 25 week 35.00 875.00 30.0% 262.50 1,137.50

m) electrical 25 week 150.00 3,750.00 30.0% 1125.00 4,875.00n) stationary 25 week 30.00 750.00 30.0% 225.00 975.00o) computer 25 week 25.00 625.00 30.0% 187.50 812.50p) rubbish removal 25 week 80.00 2,000.00 30.0% 600.00 2,600.00

73,116.67 21,935.00 95,051.67

5.1.2 Community liaison (distributed equally over the 3 road sections) 0.33 item 20,000.00 6,666.67 30.0% 2000.00 8,666.67a) 6666.67 2000.00 8666.67

5.1.3 Management Plans - environmental, earthworks, traffic, OHS, QA (15 no. for project distributed over the 3 road sections) 5 each 10,000.00 50,000.00 30.0% 15000.00 65,000.00

50000.00 15000.00 65000.00

5.1.4 Traffic Controla) Control 0.33 item 15,000.00 5,000.00 30.0% 1500.00 6,500.00b) Temporary signs 67 each 180.00 12,060.00 30.0% 3618.00 15,678.00c) Install temporary barriers 360 lin m 180.00 64,800.00 30.0% 19440.00 84,240.00d) Remove temporary barriers 360 lin m 6.50 2,340.00 30.0% 702.00 3,042.00e) mesh fence 1500 lin m 4.00 6,000.00 30.0% 1800.00 7,800.00f) Provide temporary access at driveways 1 each 1,000.00 1,000.00 30.0% 300.00 1,300.00

91,200.00 27,360.00 118,560.00220,983.33 30.0% 66,295.00 287,278.33

5.2 INFRASTRUCTURE - ENVIRONMENTAL5.2.1 Environmental protection

5.2.1.1 Building condition inspectionsGosport Street

a) Lot 16 DP 789779 The Council of Moree Plains - vacant 0 each 300.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00b) Lot 17 DP 789779 The Council of Moree Plains - Spa baths 2 each 2,000.00 4,000.00 25.0% 1000.00 5,000.00c) Lot 12 Sec 25 DP 758706 Highlead P/L lease to Wongabindi P/L - Victoria Hotel 2 each 1,500.00 3,000.00 25.0% 750.00 3,750.00d) Lot A DP 380440 P Heffernan - commercial 2 each 300.00 600.00 25.0% 150.00 750.00e) Lot 1 DP 619921 N Baird - commercial 2 each 300.00 600.00 25.0% 150.00 750.00f) Lot 1 DP 731176 Cascades Theatre & Char Grill P/L - theatre, restaurant 2 each 600.00 1,200.00 25.0% 300.00 1,500.00g) Lot 1 DP 739394 E Hetherington - industrial 2 each 300.00 600.00 25.0% 150.00 750.00h) Lot D DP 11464 B & K Stevens - commercial 2 each 300.00 600.00 25.0% 150.00 750.00i) Lot 2 DP630418 P Lowrey - commercial 2 each 300.00 600.00 25.0% 150.00 750.00j) Lot 1 DP 619087 P & H Brooks - commercial 2 each 300.00 600.00 25.0% 150.00 750.00k) Auto consol 8147-209 Lots A, B & C DP 15663 P & H Brooks - commercial 2 each 300.00 600.00 25.0% 150.00 750.00l) Lot 2 DP 315499 N Andronicos - commercial 2 each 300.00 600.00 25.0% 150.00 750.00

m) Lot 4 DP 715478 M Cikota - commercial Motel 2 each 2,000.00 4,000.00 25.0% 1000.00 5,000.00n) Auto consol 13991-50 Lots 9-10 DP 3338 P Rickman - day care office 2 each 300.00 600.00 25.0% 150.00 750.00o) Lot 2 DP 221423 I & R Urquart - residential 2 each 300.00 600.00 25.0% 150.00 750.00p) Lot 1 DP 221423 E & J Taylor - residential 2 each 300.00 600.00 25.0% 150.00 750.00q) Lot 7 DP 663093 G & E Antic - residential 2 each 300.00 600.00 25.0% 150.00 750.00r) Lot 1 DP 390187 K & G Berger - residential 2 each 300.00 600.00 25.0% 150.00 750.00s) Lot B DP 342689 B & M Buckley - residential 2 each 300.00 600.00 25.0% 150.00 750.00t) Lot A DP 342689 E & J Gearing - residential 2 each 300.00 600.00 25.0% 150.00 750.00v) Lot 5 DP 667887 M Scott - residential 2 each 300.00 600.00 25.0% 150.00 750.00w) Lot A DP 917998 T Campbell - residential 2 each 300.00 600.00 25.0% 150.00 750.00

Alice Streeta) Lot 1 DP 315489 N Andronicos - commercial 2 each 300.00 600.00 25.0% 150.00 750.00b) Lot 1 DP 827950 R & P Bussell - residential 2 each 300.00 600.00 25.0% 150.00 750.00

River Streeta) Lot B DP 379289 P & S Cooper - residential 2 each 300.00 600.00 25.0% 150.00 750.00b) Lot A DP 379289 D Paul - residential 2 each 300.00 600.00 25.0% 150.00 750.00c) Showground 2 each 5,000.00 10,000.00 25.0% 2500.00 12,500.00

Morton Street east a) residences 50 each 300.00 15,000.00 25.0% 3750.00 18,750.00

Railway propertya) Lot 3 DP 845620 SRA - residential lease (residence relocated) 2 item 300.00 600.00 25.0% 150.00 750.00

50,400.00 12,600.00 63,000.005.2.1.2 Site monitoring

(distributed over the 3 road sections)a) Noise 0.33 item 13,500.00 4,500.00 25.0% 1125.00 5,625.00b) Ground vibration 0.33 item 13,500.00 4,500.00 25.0% 1125.00 5,625.00c) Air pollution 0.33 item 2,500.00 833.33 25.0% 208.33 1,041.67d) Water quality 0.33 item 5,000.00 1,666.67 25.0% 416.67 2,083.33e) Vegetation protection 0.33 item 4,000.00 1,333.33 25.0% 333.33 1,666.67f) Fauna inspections 1 item 2,000.00 2,000.00 25.0% 500.00 2,500.00g) Heritage - aboriginal 0.33 item 5,000.00 1,666.67 25.0% 416.67 2,083.33

16,500.00 4,125.00 20,625.005.2.2 Erosion & sedimentation control

5.2.2.1 Temporary sediment control basinsa) Earthworks for sedimentation control basins 120 cu m 30.00 3,600.00 25.0% 900.00 4,500.00b) Inlets, spillways for sedimentation control basins 3 each 300.00 900.00 25.0% 225.00 1,125.00c) Removal of sedimentation control structures 3 item 150.00 450.00 25.0% 112.50 562.50

4,950.00 1,237.50 6,187.505.2.2.2 Treat contaminated water & discharge water

a) sediment control structures 3 item 400.00 1,200.00 25.0% 300.00 1,500.001,200.00 300.00 1,500.00

5.2.2.3 Other temporary worksa) Installation & removal temporary drains and dykes 600 lin m 6.00 3,600.00 25.0% 900.00 4,500.00b) installation & removal Silt fencing 350 lin m 7.00 2,450.00 25.0% 612.50 3,062.50


24/04/20012 of 6

c) Hay bale silt traps 53 each 30.00 1,590.00 25.0% 397.50 1,987.507,640.00 1,910.00 9,550.00

5.2.2.4 Maintenancea) Temporary sedimentation control basins 3 each 210.00 630.00 25.0% 157.50 787.50b) Temporary drains 1 item 800.00 800.00 25.0% 200.00 1,000.00c) Silt fencing 1 item 800.00 800.00 25.0% 200.00 1,000.00d) Hay bale silt traps 53 each 100.00 5,300.00 25.0% 1325.00 6,625.00

7,530.00 1,882.50 9,412.505.2.3 Permanent Sediment/Chemical Spillage Control Basins

a) Earthworks for sedimentation control basins 600 cu m 45.00 27,000.00 25.0% 6750.00 33,750.00b) Inlets, spillways for sedimentation control basins 1 item 1,200.00 1,200.00 25.0% 300.00 1,500.00c) Cleaning of sedimentation control structures 1 item 1,000.00 1,000.00 25.0% 250.00 1,250.00

29,200.00 7,300.00 36,500.00117,420.00 25.0% 29,355.00 146,775.00

5.3 INFRASTRUCTURE - NOISE MITIGATION5.3.1 Properties

Gosport Streeta) Lot 16 DP 789779 The Council of Moree Plains - vacant 0 item 2,000.00 0.00 20.0% 0.00 0.00b) Lot 17 DP 789779 The Council of Moree Plains - Spa baths (mound) 1 item 15,000.00 15,000.00 20.0% 3000.00 18,000.00c) Lot 12 Sec 25 DP 758706 Highlead P/L lease to Wongabindi P/L - Victoria Hotel 1 item 30,000.00 30,000.00 20.0% 6000.00 36,000.00

(thick glazing)d) Lot A DP 380440 P Heffernan - commercial (thick glazing) 1 item 2,000.00 2,000.00 20.0% 400.00 2,400.00e) Lot 1 DP 619921 N Baird - commercial (thick glazing) 1 item 2,000.00 2,000.00 20.0% 400.00 2,400.00f) Lot 1 DP 731176 Cascades Theatre & Char Grill P/L - theatre, restaurant (thick glazing 1 item 10,000.00 10,000.00 20.0% 2000.00 12,000.00g) Lot 1 DP 739394 E Hetherington - industrial (thick glazing) 1 item 2,000.00 2,000.00 20.0% 400.00 2,400.00h) Lot D DP 11464 B & K Stevens - commercial (thick glazing) 1 item 2,000.00 2,000.00 20.0% 400.00 2,400.00i) Lot 2 DP630418 P Lowrey - commercial (thick glazing) 1 item 2,000.00 2,000.00 20.0% 400.00 2,400.00j) Lot 1 DP 619087 P & H Brooks - commercial (thick glazing) 1 item 2,000.00 2,000.00 20.0% 400.00 2,400.00k) Auto consol 8147-209 Lots A, B & C DP 15663 P & H Brooks - commercial (thick glaze 1 item 2,000.00 2,000.00 20.0% 400.00 2,400.00l) Lot 2 DP 315499 N Andronicos -commercial (thick glazing) 1 item 2,000.00 2,000.00 20.0% 400.00 2,400.00

m) Lot 1 DP 715478 M Cikota - Motel (thick glazing) 1 item 20,000.00 20,000.00 20.0% 4000.00 24,000.00n) Auto consol 13991-50 Lots 9-10 DP 3338 P Rickman - day care office 0 item 15,000.00 0.00 20.0% 0.00 0.00o) Lot 2 DP 221423 I & R Urquart - residence 0 item 15,000.00 0.00 20.0% 0.00 0.00p) Lot 1 DP 221423 E & J Taylor - residence 0 item 15,000.00 0.00 20.0% 0.00 0.00q) Lot 7 DP 663093 G & E Antic - residence 0 item 15,000.00 0.00 20.0% 0.00 0.00r) Lot 1 DP 390187 K & G Berger - residence 0 item 15,000.00 0.00 20.0% 0.00 0.00s) Lot B DP 342689 B & M Buckley - residence 0 item 15,000.00 0.00 20.0% 0.00 0.00t) Lot A DP 342689 E & J Gearing - residence 0 item 15,000.00 0.00 20.0% 0.00 0.00v) Lot 5 DP 667887 M Scott - residence 0 item 15,000.00 0.00 20.0% 0.00 0.00w) Lot A DP 917998 T Campbell - residence 0 item 15,000.00 0.00 20.0% 0.00 0.00

Alice Streeta) Lot 1 DP 315489 N Andronicos - shop 0 item 2,000.00 0.00 20.0% 0.00 0.00b) Lot 1 DP 827950 R & P Bussell - residence (thick glazing, insulation, air con) 1 item 15,000.00 15,000.00 20.0% 3000.00 18,000.00

River Streeta) Lot B DP 379289 P & S Cooper - residence 0 item 15,000.00 0.00 20.0% 0.00 0.00b) Lot A DP 379289 D Paul - residence 0 item 15,000.00 0.00 20.0% 0.00 0.00c) showground 0 item 15,000.00 0.00 20.0% 0.00 0.00

Morton Street easta) residences - minor impact (thick glazing) 20 item 2,000.00 40,000.00 20.0% 8000.00 48,000.00b) residences - major impact (thick glazing, insulation, air con) 6 item 15,000.00 90,000.00 20.0% 18000.00 108,000.00c) hotel (thick glazing) 1 item 15,000.00 15,000.00 20.0% 3000.00 18,000.00

Railway propertya) Lot 81 DP 1006136 State Rail authority - tennis courts (demolished) 0 item 300.00 0.00 20.0% 0.00 0.00b) Lot 3 DP 845620 SRA - residential lease (residence relocated) 0 item 300.00 0.00 20.0% 0.00 0.00

Detention basina) Noise wall 648 sq m 300.00 194,400.00 20.0% 38880.00 233,280.00

445,400.00 20.0% 89,080.00 534,480.00

5.4 INFRASTRUCTURE - FLOOD MITIGATION5.4.1 Properties

a) Nil 0 lin m 100.00 0.00 20.0% 0.00 0.000.00 20.0% 0.00 0.00

5.5 INFRASTRUCTURE - EARTHWORKS5.5.1 Clearing & grubbing

a) Tree removal 2 each 200.00 400.00 25.0% 100.00 500.00b) Wood chip mulching to stockpile 1 cu m 8.00 8.00 25.0% 2.00 10.00c) Disused pipe systems 100 lin m 50.00 5,000.00 25.0% 1250.00 6,250.00d) Disused watermain 30 lin m 40.00 1,200.00 25.0% 300.00 1,500.00e) Disused sewer 1 lin m 40.00 40.00 25.0% 10.00 50.00f) Abandoned footpath 1 sq m 15.00 15.00 25.0% 3.75 18.75g) Salvage, haul, stockpile (near Woolstore) abandoned road pavement:

Gosport St 120 cu m 9.00 1,080.00 25.0% 270.00 1,350.00Gwydir Highway (Alice St) 180 cu m 9.00 1,620.00 25.0% 405.00 2,025.00

h) Strip & dispose abandoned road surface course 2000 sq m 2.50 5,000.00 25.0% 1250.00 6,250.00j) Strip & dispose abandoned pavement:

Railway (to south & rear of tennis courts) 975 sq m 10.00 9,750.00 25.0% 2437.50 12,187.50Gosport St lane 120 sq m 10.00 1,200.00 25.0% 300.00 1,500.00Morton St link 81 sq m 10.00 810.00 25.0% 202.50 1,012.50

j) Abandoned pits 2 each 1,000.00 2,000.00 25.0% 500.00 2,500.00k) Abandoned headwall 6 each 500.00 3,000.00 25.0% 750.00 3,750.00

31,123.00 7,780.75 38,903.755.5.2 Topsoil

a) Strip, haul, stockpile topsoil for future use 1620 cu m 5.00 8,100.00 30.0% 2430.00 10,530.008,100.00 2,430.00 10,530.00

5.5.3 General earthworksa) cut to fill

south of Gwydir Highway 5400 cu mnorth of Gwydir Highway (Bypass + detention basin) 2200 cu m

7600 cu m 6.00 45,600.00 25.0% 11400.00 57,000.00b) cut to stockpile (adjacent Woolstore) 0 cu m 15.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00c) cut to spoil off site 0 cu m 15.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00d) Import fill 0 cu m 20.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00e) Unsuitable ground material (excavate, haul, dispose & import, place select fill) 1000 cu m 35.00 35,000.00 25.0% 8750.00 43,750.00

8,600.00 80,600.00 20,150.00 100,750.005.5.4 Select material

a) Select material in select material zone (stripped road base from stockpile) 300 cu m 7.50 2,250.00 25.0% 562.50 2,812.50b) Select material in select material zone (imported) 5160 cu m 25.00 129,000.00 25.0% 32250.00 161,250.00

131,250.00 32,812.50 164,062.505.5.5 Fabric

a) Geotextile supply and installation (subgrade, sub-pavement drains) 990 sq m 4.50 4,455.00 25.0% 1113.75 5,568.75b) Geogrid supply and installation (PQ) 100 sq m 7.50 750.00 25.0% 187.50 937.50

5,205.00 1,301.25 6,506.255.5.6 Dewatering

a) Dewatering 1 item 500.00 500.00 25.0% 125.00 625.00500.00 125.00 625.00

256,778.00 25.2% 64,599.50 321,377.50


24/04/20013 of 6

5.6 INFRASTRUCTURE - DRAINAGE5.6.1 Excavation

a) Excavation for stormwater drainage structures 1490 cu m 6.00 8,940.00 25.0% 2235.00 11,175.00b) Excavation for open drains 1980 cu m 9.00 17,820.00 25.0% 4455.00 22,275.00c) Unsuitable ground excavation and replacement 10 cu m 40.00 400.00 25.0% 100.00 500.00

27,160.00 6,790.00 33,950.005.6.2 Precast reinforced concrete pipes

a) 375 diam RRJ Cl 3 79 lin m 140.00 11,060.00 25.0% 2765.00 13,825.00b) 450 diam RRJ Cl 3 53 lin m 175.00 9,275.00 25.0% 2318.75 11,593.75c) 525 diam RRJ Cl 3 0 lin m 200.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00d) 600 diam RRJ Cl 3 0 lin m 230.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00e) 675 diam RRJ Cl 3 0 lin m 280.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00f) 750 diam RRJ Cl 3 0 lin m 320.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00g) 900 diam RRJ Cl 3 15 lin m 525.00 7,875.00 25.0% 1968.75 9,843.75h) 1050 diam RRJ Cl 3 235 lin m 600.00 141,000.00 25.0% 35250.00 176,250.00i) 1200 diam RRJ Cl 3 330 lin m 925.00 305,250.00 25.0% 76312.50 381,562.50i) 1350 diam RRJ Cl 3 0 lin m 1,080.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00

712 474,460.00 118,615.00 593,075.005.6.3 Minor concrete box culverts

a) 300 x 600 RCBC 50 lin m 330.00 16,500.00 25.0% 4125.00 20,625.00b) 300 x 1200 RCBC 0 lin m 660.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00c) 300 x 1500 RCBC 0 lin m 830.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00d) 450 x 1200 RCBC 0 lin m 720.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00e) 450 x 1500 RCBC 18 lin m 900.00 16,200.00 25.0% 4050.00 20,250.00f) 600 x 1800 RCBC 330 lin m 1,260.00 415,800.00 25.0% 103950.00 519,750.00

398 448,500.00 112,125.00 560,625.005.6.4 Drainage pits,structures

a) kerb inlet, heavy duty lintels (pipes) 25 each 2,700.00 67,500.00 25.0% 16875.00 84,375.00b) kerb inlet, heavy duty lintels (culverts) 3 each 8,000.00 24,000.00 25.0% 6000.00 30,000.00c) junction pit, heavy duty cover 4 each 8,000.00 32,000.00 25.0% 8000.00 40,000.00d) grated pit 1 each 2,500.00 2,500.00 25.0% 625.00 3,125.00e) special 2 each 10,000.00 20,000.00 25.0% 5000.00 25,000.00f) trench grate 380 lin m 250.00 95,000.00 25.0% 23750.00 118,750.00

241,000.00 60,250.00 301,250.005.6.5 Minor concrete headwalls

5.6.5.1 Inleta) 450 diam 16 each 750.00 12,000.00 20.0% 2400.00 14,400.00b) 750 diam 0 each 1,000.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00c) 1050 diam 0 each 1,500.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00

12,000.00 2,400.00 14,400.005.6.5.2 Outlet

a) 450 diam 16 each 750.00 12,000.00 25.0% 3000.00 15,000.00b) 750 diam 0 each 1,000.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00c) 1050 diam 0 each 1,500.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00d) 1200 diam 0 each 2,500.00 0.00 25.0% 0.00 0.00e) 1350 diam 3 each 2,500.00 7,500.00 25.0% 1875.00 9,375.00

19,500.00 4,875.00 24,375.005.6.6 Open drains

a) Concrete lining 250 lin m 60.00 15,000.00 25.0% 3750.00 18,750.0015,000.00 3,750.00 18,750.00

5.6.7 Minor rockfilled gabions & mattressesa) 300mm rockfilled mattress 72 sq m 65.00 4,680.00 25.0% 1170.00 5,850.00

4,680.00 1,170.00 5,850.005.6.8 Water Quality Infrastructure (at detention basin)

(excavation included in earthworks section)a) Combined sedimatation and spill basin (upstream of detention basin) 1 each 15,000.00 15,000.00 25.0% 3750.00 18,750.00b) Perimeter safety fence (around WQP only) 40 lin m 80.00 3,200.00 25.0% 800.00 4,000.00

18,200.00 4,550.00 22,750.001,260,500.00 25.0% 314,525.00 1,575,025.00

5.7 INFRASTRUCTURE - PAVEMENT5.7.1 Lean-mix concrete subbase

a) 175mm lean mix subbase 3180 cu m 160.00 508,800.00 20.0% 101760.00 610,560.00b) finish & cure 18171 sq m 0.70 12,720.00 20.0% 2544.00 15,264.00

521,520.00 104,304.00 625,824.005.7.2 Asphalt

a) 150 mm (2x75) DG 20 6050 tonne 160.00 968,000.00 20.0% 193600.00 1,161,600.00b) 50 mm DG 14 2020 tonne 180.00 363,600.00 20.0% 72720.00 436,320.00c) 50 mm min. DG 14 overlay, variable correction + wearing (80mm average) 40 tonne 200.00 8,000.00 25.0% 2000.00 10,000.00

1,339,600.00 268,320.00 1,607,920.005.7.3 Cold milling

a) Gwydir Hwy 30 lin m 12.00 360.00 25.0% 90.00 450.00360.00 90.00 450.00

5.7.4 Subgrade & sub-pavement drainagea) 100 mm subsoil & filter backfill 450 lin m 30.00 13,500.00 25.0% 3375.00 16,875.00b) cleanouts & inspection covers 10 each 100.00 1,000.00 25.0% 250.00 1,250.00

14,500.00 3,625.00 18,125.001,875,980.00 20.1% 376,339.00 2,252,319.00

5.8 INFRASTRUCTURE - STRUCTURES5.8.1 Bridges

5.8.1.1 Mehi River Bridgea) Composite Substructure & Superstructure (length150m, width 10m) 0 sq m 2,000.00 0.00 20.0% 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.005.8.2 Major drainage structures

a) Detention basin early storage/water quality/spillage chamber 255 sq m 1,500.00 382,104.00 25.0% 95526.00 477,630.00382,104.00 95,526.00 477,630.00

5.8.3 Reinforced soil walls5.8.3.1 Design

a) Supplier design 15% item 0.00 0.00 20.0% 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00

5.8.3.2 Constructionb) Supply and installation 0 sq m 275.00 0.00 20.0% 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.005.8.4 Retaining walls

a) Wall #1 0 sq m 300.00 0.00 20.0% 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00

382,104.00 25.0% 95,526.00 477,630.00

5.9 INFRASTRUCTURE - LOCAL ROADS

5.9.1 Gosport Street - Anne Streeta) Road pavement 1 Item 30,000.00 30,000.00 15.0% 4500.00 34,500.00

30,000.00 4,500.00 34,500.005.9.2 River Street - Morton Street


24/04/20014 of 6

a) Road pavement link 1 Item 30,000.00 30,000.00 15.0% 4500.00 34,500.0030,000.00 4,500.00 34,500.00

5.9.3 Morton Street - Oak Lane north linka) Road pavement link 1 Item 10,000.00 10,000.00 15.0% 1500.00 11,500.00

10,000.00 1,500.00 11,500.005.9.4 Railway station precinct

a) Relocated carpark 1 Item 150,000.00 150,000.00 15.0% 22500.00 172,500.00150,000.00 22,500.00 172,500.00220,000.00 15.0% 33,000.00 253,000.00

5.10 INFRASTRUCTURE - URBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPING5.10.1 Urban design

5.10.1.2 Spa baths areaa) Display 1 Item 10,000.00 10,000.00 15.0% 1500.00 11,500.00

10,000.00 1,500.00 11,500.005.10.1.4 Gosport Street north

a) Basin/park 1 Item 2,000.00 2,000.00 15.0% 300.00 2,300.002,000.00 300.00 2,300.00

5.10.2 Landscaping5.10.2.1 Spa baths area

a) site preparation 1800 sq m 1.00 1,800.00 20.0% 360.00 2,160.00b) advanced stock 300 each 50.00 15,000.00 20.0% 3000.00 18,000.00c) theme trees 10 each 8,000.00 80,000.00 20.0% 16000.00 96,000.00d) obtain mulch from stockpile and spread 1000 sq m 5.50 5,500.00 20.0% 1100.00 6,600.00e) maintain 1 item 2,000.00 2,000.00 20.0% 400.00 2,400.00

104,300.00 20,860.00 125,160.005.10.2.2 Gosport St basin

a) site preparation 7200 sq m 1.00 7,200.00 20.0% 1440.00 8,640.00b) advanced stock 100 each 50.00 5,000.00 20.0% 1000.00 6,000.00c) theme trees 10 each 8,000.00 80,000.00 20.0% 16000.00 96,000.00d) obtain mulch from stockpile and spread 1000 sq m 5.50 5,500.00 20.0% 1100.00 6,600.00e) maintain 1 item 2,000.00 2,000.00 20.0% 400.00 2,400.00

99,700.00 19,940.00 119,640.00216,000.00 19.7% 42,600.00 258,600.00

5.11 INFRASTRUCTURE - MISCELLANEOUS5.11.1 Demolition

Gosport Streeta) Lot 1 DP855832 R 7 P Russell - commercial 1 item 10,000.00 10,000.00 25.0% 2,500.00 12,500.00b) Lot E DP 363918 K & T Bella - residential 1 item 10,000.00 10,000.00 25.0% 2,500.00 12,500.00c) Lot D DP 363918 HRM QE2 Police Dept - residential 1 item 10,000.00 10,000.00 25.0% 2,500.00 12,500.00d) Lot 3 DP 667744 K & G Berger - residential 1 item 10,000.00 10,000.00 25.0% 2,500.00 12,500.00e) Lot 3 DP 664162 D Berger - residential 1 item 10,000.00 10,000.00 25.0% 2,500.00 12,500.00f) Lot B DP 356257 K & G Berger - residential 1 item 10,000.00 10,000.00 25.0% 2,500.00 12,500.00g) Lot A DP 356257 M Berger - residential 1 item 10,000.00 10,000.00 25.0% 2,500.00 12,500.00

River Streeta) Lot A DP 373511 K Mead - residential 1 item 10,000.00 10,000.00 25.0% 2,500.00 12,500.00b) Lot B DP 373511 E Smith - residential 1 item 10,000.00 10,000.00 25.0% 2,500.00 12,500.00c) Lot 1 DP839694 Aboriginal Corp - residential 1 item 10,000.00 10,000.00 25.0% 2,500.00 12,500.00

Railwaya) Lot 82 DP 1006136 RSA - former railway booking office 1 item 20,000.00 20,000.00 20.0% 4000.00 24,000.00b) Lot 81 DP 1006136 RSA - tennis court side shed 1 item 100.00 100.00 20.0% 20.00 120.00c) Lot 8 DP 825743 SRA - residential 1 item 10,000.00 10,000.00 25.0% 2,500.00 12,500.00d) Lot 3 DP 845620 SRA - residential lease 1 item 10,000.00 10,000.00 25.0% 2,500.00 12,500.00

140,100.00 34,020.00 174,120.005.11.2 Minor concrete works

a) island infill (include bedding, feature surface treatment) 340 sq m 50.00 17,000.00 20.0% 3400.00 20,400.00b) SA kerb 1120 lin m 45.00 50,400.00 20.0% 10080.00 60,480.00c) SF kerb 240 lin m 25.00 6,000.00 20.0% 1200.00 7,200.00

73,400.00 14,680.00 88,080.005.11.3 UPVC ducts

a) 150 mm conduit 150 lin m 30.00 4,500.00 20.0% 900.00 5,400.004,500.00 900.00 5,400.00

5.11.4 Road furniture, marking & signposting5.11.4.1 Guide posts

a) guide posts 8 each 30.00 240.00 20.0% 48.00 288.00240.00 48.00 288.00

5.11.4.2 Safety barriersa) steel guard fence 600 lin m 85.00 51,000.00 20.0% 10200.00 61,200.00

51,000.00 10,200.00 61,200.005.11.4.3 Pavement marking

a) edge line (paint) 1230 lin m 1.50 1,845.00 20.0% 369.00 2,214.00b) barrier line 900 lin m 2.50 2,250.00 20.0% 450.00 2,700.00c) continuous line 50 lin m 1.80 90.00 20.0% 18.00 108.00d) broken line 1160 lin m 1.20 1,392.00 20.0% 278.40 1,670.40e) chevrons 300 sq m 75.00 22,500.00 20.0% 4500.00 27,000.00

28,077.00 5,615.40 33,692.405.11.4.4 Pavement markers

a) raised pavement markers 284 each 8.00 2,272.00 20.0% 454.40 2,726.402,272.00 454.40 2,726.40

5.11.4.5 Signpostinga) advance directional 4 each 30,000.00 120,000.00 20.0% 24000.00 144,000.00b) directional 4 each 15,000.00 60,000.00 20.0% 12000.00 72,000.00c) directional small 4 each 1,000.00 4,000.00 20.0% 800.00 4,800.00d) warning 4 each 200.00 800.00 20.0% 160.00 960.00e) hazard boards 6 each 250.00 1,500.00 20.0% 300.00 1,800.00

186,300.00 37,260.00 223,560.00Sub toatal 5.11.4 267,889.00 20.0% 53,577.80 321,466.80

5.11.5 Street lighting 5.11.5.1 Gwydir Highway intersection

a) Supply & lay UPVC Conduit/Cable 700 lin m 30.00 21,000.00 20.0% 4200.00 25,200.00b) cable pits 8 each 200.00 1,600.00 20.0% 320.00 1,920.00c) control cabinet 1 each 9,500.00 9,500.00 20.0% 1900.00 11,400.00d) Concrete plinth for light column 32 each 1,000.00 32,000.00 20.0% 6400.00 38,400.00e) Lighting column and fittings 32 each 1,500.00 48,000.00 20.0% 9600.00 57,600.00

112,100.00 20.0% 22,420.00 134,520.005.11.6 Fencing

a) rural boundary fence 400 lin m 30.00 12,000.00 15.0% 1800.00 13,800.0012,000.00 15.0% 1,800.00 13,800.00

5.11.7 Vegetationa) spray weeds with herbicide 1000 sq m 0.50 500.00 20.0% 100.00 600.00b) Load, haul, place topsoil on verges/basin 10320 sq m 2.50 25,800.00 20.0% 5160.00 30,960.00c) hydroseeding 10320 sq m 0.50 5,160.00 20.0% 1032.00 6,192.00d) straw mulch 10320 sq m 0.30 3,096.00 20.0% 619.20 3,715.20e) spray with bitumen 10320 sq m 0.50 5,160.00 20.0% 1032.00 6,192.00f) lining with jute mesh 100 lin m 3.50 350.00 20.0% 70.00 420.00g) watering 1 item 1,600.00 1,600.00 20.0% 320.00 1,920.00

41,666.00 20.0% 8,333.20 49,999.20


24/04/20015 of 6

5.11.8 Property adjustment works5.11.8.1 Lot 80 DP 1006136 RSA - purchased for relocated rail workshops

a) relocate workshops 1 Item 40,000.00 40,000.00 20.0% 8000.00 48,000.00b) New gravel access & hardstand 1 Item 15,000.00 15,000.00 20.0% 3000.00 18,000.00

55,000.00 11,000.00 66,000.005.11.8.2 Lot 3 DP 845620 residential relocated to Lot 3 DP 829660 (former SRA lot)

a) Relocate residence & sheds 1 Item 60,000.00 60,000.00 20.0% 12000.00 72,000.00b) Connect services 1 Item 1,500.00 1,500.00 20.0% 300.00 1,800.00c) Install boundary fence & gate 100 Item 30.00 3,000.00 20.0% 600.00 3,600.00d) Provide driveway 1 Item 1,000.00 1,000.00 20.0% 200.00 1,200.00

65,500.00 13,100.00 78,600.005.11.8.3 Lot 5 Sec 31 DP 758706 K & G Berger - residential

a) Install boundary fence 60 Item 30.00 1,800.00 20.0% 360.00 2,160.001,800.00 360.00 2,160.00

5.11.8.4 Lot 2 DP 600610 Jonenderbee Investments P/L - former Woolstorea) Install boundary fence 190 Item 30.00 5,700.00 20.0% 1140.00 6,840.00

5,700.00 1,140.00 6,840.00Sub toatal 5.11.8 128,000.00 20.0% 25,600.00 153,600.00

5.11.9 Rail/Road Traffic Signals (Gwydir Highway intersection)a) Install coordinated traffic signals 1 item 280,000.00 280,000.00 20.0% 56000.00 336,000.00b) Rail infrastructure modifications 1 item 150,000.00 150,000.00 25.0% 37500.00 187,500.00

430,000.00 21.7% 93,500.00 523,500.00

1,209,655.00 21.1% 254,831.00 1,464,486.00

6.0 HANDOVERa) Modify signage 1 item 5,000.00 5,000.00 25.0% 1250.00 6,250.00

5,000.00 25.0% 1,250.00 6,250.00


24/04/20016 of 6

Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited South Urban Sect Summary

MOREE BYPASS

BASE CASE OPTION (Gosport Street Preferred Option) - Southern Urban Section

Southern Urban Section Estimate Summary(Ch 00 to Ch 1020)




Sub total $406,666.67 28.0% $113,866.67 $520,533.33 9.0%


Sub total $146,000.00 28.0% $40,880.00 $186,880.00 3.2%

3.0 Property Acquisitions3.1 Professional Services for property $16,666.67 28% $4,666.67 $21,333.333.2 Property Acquisition Costs $53,000.00 25.0% $13,250.00 $66,250.003.3 Property Resale Credits $0.00 -15.0% $0.00 $0.003.4 Project Management Services $16,666.67 28% $4,666.67 $21,333.333.5 Client Representation $1,666.67 28% $466.67 $2,133.33

Sub total $88,000.00 26.2% $23,050.00 $111,050.00 1.9%

4.0 Public Utility Adjustments4.1 Adjust Utilities $354,621.58 35.0% $124,117.55 $478,739.134.2 Project Management Services $35,462.16 35.0% $12,411.76 $47,873.914.3 Client Representation $3,546.22 35.0% $1,241.18 $4,787.39

Sub total $393,629.95 35.0% $137,770.48 $531,400.43 9.2%

5.0 Construction5.1 Infrastructure - General $215,283.33 30.0% $64,585.00 $279,868.335.2 Infrastructure - Environmental $56,758.33 25.0% $14,189.58 $70,947.925.3 Infrastructure - Noise Mitigation $226,000.00 25.0% $56,500.00 $282,500.005.4 Infrastructure - Flood Mitigation $0.00 20.0% $0.00 $0.005.5 Infrastructure - Earthworks $249,383.00 25.0% $62,414.50 $311,797.505.6 Infrastructure - Drainage $115,290.00 25.0% $28,822.50 $144,112.505.7 Infrastructure - Pavement $1,668,460.00 20.1% $334,829.00 $2,003,289.005.8 Infrastructure - Structures $0.00 20.0% $0.00 $0.005.9 Infrastructure - Local Roads $54,000.00 15.0% $8,100.00 $62,100.005.10 Infrastructure - Urban Design & Landscaping $108,500.00 19.8% $21,450.00 $129,950.005.11 Infrastructure - Miscellaneous $412,313.50 20.6% $84,909.10 $497,222.605.12 Infrastructure - Site Management $186,359.29 25% $46,589.82 $232,949.115.13 Project Management Services $62,119.76 25% $15,529.94 $77,649.705.14 Client Representation $6,211.98 25% $1,552.99 $7,764.97

Sub total $3,360,679.20 22.0% $739,472.44 $4,100,151.64 70.9%

6.0 Handover6.1 Refurbish Frome Street south $163,000.00 25.0% $40,750.00 $203,750.006.2 Project Data and Performance $100,000.00 25.0% $25,000.00 $125,000.006.3 Project Management Services $1,000.00 25.0% $250.00 $1,250.006.4 Client Representation $1,000.00 25.0% $250.00 $1,250.00

Sub total $265,000.00 25.0% $66,250.00 $331,250.00 5.7%


INDICATIVE COST ESTIMATE ($ million) $5.794.2.1 Urban South

REALITY CHECK - Southern urban section

Tee intersection upgrade + two lanes only in Gosport St

Infrastrucutre construction Unit Unit Unit Comment(cost per unit)

Length of project km 1.02 $5.68 Project cost/kmLength of lane kilomentres km 3.35 $1.73 Project cost/lane kmPavement area m2 15440 $129.75 Pavement cost /m2 pavementArea of structures - bridges m2 0 0.00 Bridge cost /m2 deck area (Mehi River bridge) - major culverts m2 0 0.00 Culvert cost/m2 deck area (creek crossings)Earthworks (cut to fill + cut to spoil) m3 9000 $10.13 Earthwork cost/m3 earthworksEarthworks (Select) m3 4680 $25.50Earthworks (Unsuitable) m3 1000 $43.75

Contingency

Moree_PREFERr2.XLSSheet South Urban Sect Summary

24/04/20011 of 1

• • • •••


• • • •••

A P P E N D I X 6 . 4


• • • •••


Document No: RTA-CSD-PMS-PR-P-91-F1.......... Issue 1.1 Page 1 of 1

VERIFICATION CHECKLIST

Estimate Concurrence Checklist (DRAFT INITIAL CONCEPT ESTIMATE) Project: SH17 – Newell Highway. Moree Bypass



Process: Items to be included with an estimate being submitted for concurrence

Description of Project and Background Y Scope Report Attached A3 copies of plans, longitudinal sections and typical or critical cross sections.

Y Scope Report Attached

Aerial photos of the project showing the alignment option to gain an appreciation of the terrain / topography.

Y Scope Report Attached

Relevant extracts of EIS (Summary and Issues Volume) or extracts of the REF

N/A

Copy of EIS determination/DUAP Conditions N/A Geotechnical Reports N/A A3 copy of Concept or Draft General Arrangement Drawings for major structures.

N/A Not yet developed

Hard copy of Estimate including Summary Sheet with reality check data for comparison with similar projects.

Y Attached

Electronic copy of estimate or spreadsheets including Summary Sheet.

Y E-mail to Mark Andrew

List of assumptions in the estimate and how they have been covered.

Y Scope Report

List of critical, high risk and potentially difficult items in the estimate and how they have been addressed.

Y Risk Plan & Scope Report

Staging or methodology issues that may affect estimate and how they have been addressed.

Y Scope Report

Relevant contingency included for the type of estimate submitted.

Y

Carry out a risk assessment on high risk items in the construction component of the estimate.

Y Risk Plan Attached

The above activities have been satisfactorily completed

Signed:............................................................................. Date: .......................................... Project Manager Comments: This estimate submission is for the Draft Initial Concept Estimate for Moree Bypass. Following concurrence and approval of the estimate, further discussions will be held involving Western Region, RNI and DoTRS to finalise the scope of the works. In particular, the intersection treatments at each end of the project and the possible extension of the works to the south will be discussed. The attached “Base Estimate” is to be used to facilitate those discussions. Once the scope is agreed, the Initial Concept Estimate will be adjusted accordingly and re-submitted for further concurrence.

http://home.rta.nsw.gov.au/dts/cs/pmo/pmodocs/prp91f1.doc

• • • •••


• • • •••

A P P E N D I X 6 . 5


• • • •••



Estimate Approval and Acceptance (A) PROJECT: Moree Bypass (Gosport Street Option) PROJECT No.: 60621 ROAD No: SH17 – Newell Highway LOCATION: Moree, NSW REGION/ OFFICE: Western Region (Parkes) ESTIMATE OF COST:ESTIMATE OF COST:ESTIMATE OF COST:ESTIMATE OF COST: Initial Concept Estimates for 6 Scope Options ESTIMATE STATUS: Draft DATE: 26 March 2001

The option estimates for this project have been prepared in accordance with the Scope, Estimating and Cost Control for Development Projects Guidelines. The details of the scope and estimate and proposed program of works are attached. Peer review carried out by: Name: Max Annandappa.......................................... Position:..Project Manager, Western Region I recommend that the option estimates be approved in the following amounts ($2001): Base Estimate (Low Speed Connections at Each End) $29.76M Base Option plus Bullus Drive $31.22M Base plus High SpeedSouthern Connection Option $30.00M Base plus High Speed Southern Connection Option plus Bullus Drive $31.44M Base plus High Speed Northern Connection Option $31.40M Base Estimate (4 lanes in South Urban Section) $32.07M ………………………………… Project Manager Date: The option estimates have been reviewed on the basis of the outlined project scope and other relevant information. I recommend that the option estimates be established as ($2001): Base Estimate (Low Speed Connections at Each End) $29.76M Base Option plus Bullus Drive $31.22M Base plus High SpeedSouthern Connection Option $30.00M Base plus High Speed Southern Connection Option plus Bullus Drive $31.44M Base plus High Speed Northern Connection Option $31.40M Base Estimate (4 lanes in South Urban Section) $32.07M (Comments attached)

………………………………… Manager, Project Management Office Date: On the basis of the information provided, concurrence is given to the option estimates in the following amounts ($2001): Base Estimate (Low Speed Connections at Each End) $29.76M Base Option plus Bullus Drive $31.22M Base plus High SpeedSouthern Connection Option $30.00M Base plus High Speed Southern Connection Option plus Bullus Drive $31.44M Base plus High Speed Northern Connection Option $31.40M Base Estimate (4 lanes in South Urban Section) $32.07M

………………………………… General Manager Project Management Office Date:

Preparation of Project Estimate Estimate Review Estimate Concurrence


I approve the Initial Concept Option Estimates in the following amounts ($2001): Base Estimate (Low Speed Connections at Each End) $29.76M Base Option plus Bullus Drive $31.22M Base plus High SpeedSouthern Connection Option $30.00M Base plus High Speed Southern Connection Option plus Bullus Drive $31.44M Base plus High Speed Northern Connection Option $31.40M Base Estimate (4 lanes in South Urban Section) $32.07M Recommended Option – Base plus High Speed Connections (North & South) $33.00M PLUS Bullus Drive Upgrade Based on construction start in 2002/03, and 1%pa rise in the RCI, and annual allocations of $1M (01/02), $17M (02/03) and $13M (03/04), the $OT estimate for the recommended option for this project is $34M. ………………………………… Regional Manager, Western Region Date: I accept the Initial Concept Estimate of $34M ($OT) and approve the Project Budget as $34M.


RTA Project Estimating Detailed Estimate 7-1Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

• • • •••

C H A P T E R 7CHAPTER 0DETAILED ESTIMATE

7.1 Summary

This chapter sets down the process for preparataion of a DetailedEstimate.

7.2 Overview

There are 4 key stages to the preparation of a Detailed Estimate. theseare:

• Preliminary Stage (or Interrogative Stage);• Project Appreciation Stage;• Estimate Establishment Stage; and• Review and Approval Stage.

It is recommended that an estimate plan be prepared by the ProjectManager, to ensure that proper knowledge and resources are availableand applied to the preparation of the estimate.

7.3 Preliminary Stage

The following flow diagram indicates the activities that will beundertaken in this interrogative stage:


• • • •••

7-2 Chapter 7 RTA Project EstimatingIssued December 2001 Edition 1, Revision 0

7.3.1 Estimate ProgrammeThis activity is essential to the success of the preparation of theestimate. Approximately 2 weeks should be allowed for the preparationof a Detailed Estimate (assuming that all information is avaialble).




ProgrammeEstimate

Examine andObtain data

Take off quantities

Listsubcontractors

List materials

Send enquiries

Preliminaryconstructionprogramme

Preliminary or Interrogative Stage

B

C

D

A

Check contractingstrategy

Check ScopeDefinition Check drawings


• • • •••


computer generated quantities, property valuations, handover cost estimates and the like.

7.3.3 Project ProgrammeA project devlopment programme is to be prepared. This shouldindicate all significant activities and milestones, together with anapproximate construction programme.

7.3.4 Significant ComponentsThe estimator will be aware of likely significant components within theproject estimate (for example, on a road project the concrete or asphaltsub-base and base; on a bridge project reinforcement and structuralconcrete).

The estimator may seek quotations (verbally or in writing) from localsuppliers or subcontractors for these components. Written quotationsshould be kept in the estimate files; verbal quotations should berecorded (a convenient form for recording verbal quotations is includedin Appendix 7.2).

7.3.5 QuantitiesQuantities are either provided in computer generated form, direct fromthe design, or taken-off by the estimator.

Where quantities are provided by computer aided design packages, caremust be taken that the program is actually producing the correct output.Problems have been discovered in the past where (for example):

• earthworks quantities have been generated assuming a flat horizontal surface plane where a dual carriageway is at split level;

• earthworks quantities have been generated without allowance for topsoil;

• fill quantities have been incorrect, without allowance for the reduction in fill due to the road pavement; and

• • • •••


• pavement quantities have been incorrect, as the wrong centreline for the superficial area calculation has been wrong.

7.4 Project Appreciation Stage

The following diagram indicates the activities that will be undertakenin this project appreciation stage:

7.4.1 Site VisitA site visit should be made by anyone on the estimating team who isunfamiliar with the project. Appendix 7.3 gives a checklist of thesignificant items to be considered.

7.4.2 Construction MethodsFor significant items (such as earthworks or road pavement), theestimator is to determine the probable construction methods that will

Site visitComplete

informationgathering

Determineresources andconstruction

method

Pre-tenderconstructionprogramme

Plant selection

Project Appreciation Stage

B

C

D

G

F

H

I

J

A


• • • •••

be adopted by the successful tenderer, together with the likely plant..For example, in a roadworks project, will the earthworks be by scraperor dozer and truck?

7.4.3 Pre-tender Construction ProgrammeFrom the methods assumed for significant items and historicalproductivities, a pre-tender construction programme is established.This will confirm the preliminary programme established earlier in theprocess.



The following diagram indicates the activities that will be iundertakenfor any item that is to be estimated from first principles:

• • • •••


7.5.1 Plant CostsPlant costs will be calculated, together with an estimate of operatingcosts.

7.5.2 Labour CostsAll-in labour costs will be calculated.

7.5.3 QuotationsQuotations received from subcontractors and suppliers will be studiedand adjusted to allow for missing items. For example, allowance willbe made for escalation if required.

Plant costs

Operating costs

Plant ratesincluded in direct

costs

Labour costsinclusive of all

labour related oncosts

Subcontract costs

Material costs

Labour costs

Review Quotations Add allowances

Price Establishment Stage (part 1)F

H

I

J

L

K

M

N

Build up of unit rates


• • • •••

7.5.4 Built-Up Unit RatesAt this stage, a number of built-up unit rates will have been calculated.It is often helpful in later reviews and investigations if a commonformat and calculation be used for establishing first principles rates.

The estimate establishment stage continues as shown in the followingdiagram:

7.5.5 Direct Cost EstimateThe direct cost estimate is calculated, by multiplying the quantities bydirect cost rates. The rates used may be (for significant items) thosecalculated earlier in the process of preparation of the estimate, ordeduced from historical data.

Labour costs not indirects

Plant erection andtransport

Complete unitrates

Compile directcost

(quantities x rates)

Compile indirectcosts

Total and review Risk calculation

Estimate Establishment Stage (Part 2)

L

K

M

N

O

Contingencycalculation

Opportunitycalculation

Compile ProjectDevlopment costs

Compile DetailedInvestigation &Design costs

Compile PropertyAcquisition costs

Compile handovercosts

• • • •••


7.5.6 Indirect Cost EstimateReference to the pre-tender construction programme will establish thelikely duration of the construction activities. This may then be used tocalculate the indirect costs.

Items to be considered (where not in the direct cost) include:

• Site management salaries and allowances (travel, accommodation, superannuation);

• Temporary facilities (offices, sheds, utilities, communications);• Labour not included within the direct cost (attendant labour,

surveyors);• Plant not included within the direct cost (float to and from site,

scaffolding);• Consumable tools and equipment;• Finance charges, legal fees, insurances & excesses, security

bonds.

Special attention should be paid to certain items, to ensure adequateallowance is made for:

• Design fees and other consultant costs (in the case of a design and construct delivery mechanism); and

• The contractors allowance for non-recoverable escalation (dependent upon the commercial delivery strategy).

7.5.7 Contractors overheads, risk and marginTo the sum of the indirect cost and the direct cost (“cost”) must beadded the contractors overheads, risk and margin.

Overheads refers to the contractors home office (corporate) overheads.In the absence of any other data, 5% of the cost should be allowed.

Risk refers to the contractors allowance for its perceived net risk (afterconsideration of all risks and opportunities) in the project.


• • • •••

Depending on the commercial strategy of the project, risks andopportunities may include:

• Design risk;• Quantities risk;• Rates risk;• Errors & omissions risk;• Market risk;• etc.

In the absence of any other data, an amount in the range of 3%(schedule of rates delivery method) to 10% (design & cosntructdelivery method) of the cost should be allowed.

Profit is the amount that the contractor anticipates it will make in profitafter all costs have been paid. In the absence of any other data, anamount in the range of 3% (competitive market) to 5% of the costshould be allowed.

7.5.8 Project Development CostsProject Devlopment costs are defined in Chapter 4. At the time ofpreparation of a Detailed Estimate, these costs have probably beenincurred and may be determined from the project ledger.

7.5.9 Detailed Investigation and Design CostsDetailed investigation and Design Costs are defined in Chapter 4. Atthe time of preparation of a Detailed Estimate, these costs have mostlybeen incurred and may be determined from the project ledger.

However, allowance must be made for the remaining costs.

7.5.10 Property Acquistion CostsProperty acquisition costs are defined in Chapter 4. Propertyacquisition costs must be obtained from RTA’s Property Section.

• • • •••



7.5.11 Handover CostsHandover costs are defined in Chapter 4. A detailed estimate of thesecosts is to be prepared.



Appropriate contingencies must be added to each component of theproject estimate. At detailed estimate stage, contingencies in the rangeof 10% to 20% are appropriate. Contingencies outside this range mustbe justified.

7.6 Review

Prior to commencement of the Concurrence, Approval and Acceptanceprocedure, the Project Manager should arrrange a review of theestimate.

This should follow a structured format and be documented. A sampleestimate review sheet is attached at Appendix 7.5.

It is mandatory that a risk analysis be prepared for detailed costestimates.


• • • •••


All detailed estimates are the subject of Concurrence, approval andacceptance.

Responsibilities are detailed in Chapter 2.

The procedure is datailed in the following charts:

• • • •••



PROCESS MAP

A

ListKnown Risks

Project Manager

ListKey Assumptions

Project Manager


Start


ScopeProject





Project Manager



Project Manager


Manager, PMO

Project Manager




DCB


* Concept - Longitudinal Section, Critical Sections.Typical Cross Sections (Cut/Fill), Most Utilities.

* Detailed - Full set of plans including longitudinalsection, cross sections, Utilities locations clearlymarked.


Information to be submitted withthe estimate for a concurrencecheck:* Estimate Type* Plans* Scope* Key assumptions* Known risks* Reality check


YES

NO



• • • •••

Appendix 7.6 contains a sample Detailed Cost Estimate Reportsubmitted for Concurrence, Acceptance and Approval.


PROCESS MAP

A

General Manager,PMO

Estimator, PMO

Estimator, PMO

Estimator, PMO

Project Manager



DCB



YES

NO





GM, PMO Concurrence




YES

NO



Client

FINISH


• • • •••


Appendix 7.6 contains a sample detailed estimate report, to besubmitted for concurrence, approval and acceptance of the detailed costestimate.

Appendix 7.7 contains the Verfification Checklist, to be submitted forconcurrence, approval and acceptance of the detailed cost estimate.

Appendix 7.8 contains the Estimate Approval and Acceptance form tobe submitted for concurrence, approval and acceptance of the detailedcost estimate.

• • • •••

A P P E N D I X 7 . 1


• • • •••


DETAILED ESTIMATE SCOPE

MR 635 – OLD WINDSOR ROAD AND MR184 - WINDSOR ROAD

SUNNYHOLT ROAD TO MERRIVILLE ROAD STANHOPE GARDENS

MR 635 - OLD WINDSOR ROAD AND MR184 - WINDSOR ROAD

SUNNYHOLT ROAD TO MERRIVILLE ROAD


CONTENTS 1 Summary ................................................................................................................1

2 Scope......................................................................................................................1

3 Key assumptions ....................................................................................................3

MR 635 - OLD WINDSOR ROAD AND MR 184 - WINDSOR ROAD SUNNYHOLT ROAD TO MERRIVILLE ROAD


1 SUMMARY

A detailed estimate is to be prepared for the Project.

The estimate will be based on the Detailed Design (part complete) dated February 2001, Concept Design dated January 2001 and draft Review of Environmental Factors (REF) dated December 2000.

2 SCOPE

The following information provides a description of the scope of work:

Location The Project is located between the Sunnyholt Road on Old Windsor Road and 300m north of Merriville Road on Windsor Road. It is located within both the City of Blacktown (western side) and Baulkham Hills Shire (eastern side).

ROADLOC Reference

Old Windsor Road Start: 0000635/0120/A/0.150

Finish: 0000635/0120/A/1.950

Windsor Road Start: 0000184/0230/A/0.000

Finish: 0000184/0230/A/0.782

Limits of Work The work extends from the Old Windsor Road / Sunnyholt Road intersection and extends northwards along Old Windsor Road and then Windsor Road to 300m north of the intersection of Windsor Road and Merriville Road.

Length: 2,700m.

The work is shown on the Concept Design Plan attached in Appendix B.

Design Drawings Concept Drawing No.0635.040.CD.0001 (attached to the REF)

Detail Design Drawing 0635.040.RC.2501 (Sunnyholt Road to Caddies Creek)

* Note: Detail Design of the next section from Caddies Creek to north of Merriville Road is not yet complete.

Type of Construction Reconstruction and widening on a new and existing alignment, with the Old Windsor Road portion being on new alignment slightly to west of existing and the Windsor Road portion being widened on the existing Windsor Road alignment.

Cross Section & Design Divided carriageway with two 3.25m wide lanes in each direction along Old Windsor Road and then three 3.25m wide lanes in each direction from 200m south of the Old Windsor Road / Windsor Road intersection to the northern limit of the work. A shoulder, 1.5m wide is provided on each carriageway on Old Windsor Road plus a 1.5m verge in fill areas or a 1.0m SO gutter in cut areas. Median width is 4.5m minimum up to 9.0m.

On Windsor Road a 1.5m shoulder has been allowed in the southbound direction along with 0.7m wide SA kerb and gutter on both sides.

Turn lanes of 3.0m are provided at the Samantha Riley Drive, Windsor Road and Merriville Road intersections. Provision for double right turns is incorporated at all intersections plus a double left turn out of Samantha Riley Drive (east) into Old Windsor Road (south) and Windsor Road (south) into Windsor Road (east)

A 3.0m off road shared pedestrian / cycle path has been provided on the western side of the new road.

New traffic signals are to be provided at the Samantha Riley Drive / Old Windsor Road and Old Windsor Road / Windsor Road intersections. Reconstruction of existing traffic signals is to be undertaken at the Merriville Road / Windsor Road intersection.

Pavement Design The pavement design is 185mm of asphalt over 240mm of lean mix concrete over 300mm of select material zone.

Major Structures A 14m extension to an existing 5 cell box culvert over Caddies Creek on Old Windsor Road forms part of the work.

Property Affected Property acquisition requirements are outlined in Appendix C of the Concept Engineering Design Report.

Acquisitions are required for 4 properties along the Windsor Road section of the project: Villaworld and the James Ruse Hotel on the west and the Muir property and Sydney Water property on the east.

Combined acquisitions for the road widening and transitway project are required to the north of the Old Windsor Road / Windsor Road intersection on the eastern side (Muir and Sydney Water properties). Only costs associated with the road widening will be included in the estimate.

Public Utilities The public utility impacts are outlined in the Public Utility Impact Report. Potential impacts are on overhead electrical services of Integral Energy, underground watermains of Sydney Water (generally road crossings), underground gas mains and a regulator of AGL and major underground telecommunications cables of Telstra and Optus. The Telstra cables are particularly significant coming out of the Kellyville exchange with 2 separate 2400 pair cables, one on each side of the road, plus optical fibre and smaller cable is being affected.

Physical Constraints • Heritage section of Old Windsor Road on eastern side of corridor

• Prescribed dam upstream of Caddies Creek on western side of corridor

• Stanhope Gardens residential subdivision on western side of corridor

• Trunk water, gas and telecommunications utility services along western side of corridor.

• Existing Old Windsor and Windsor Roads and the need to maintain traffic flow.

• Commercial businesses along Windsor Road between Old Windsor Road and Merriville Road (eastern side)

• Commercial businesses along Windsor Road adjacent to Merriville Road intersection.

Environmental Constraints • A number of heritage sites are present in the area, in particular sections of the existing Old

Windsor Road and historic boundary markers.

• Effects of noise and vibration on nearby residences

• Sensitivity of the creek and watercourses areas to development

• Need to maintain or improve the visual amenity along the upgraded route

Geotechnical Issues • The ground conditions, particularly at creek areas, may be susceptible to poor subsurface

conditions leading to significant quantities of unsuitable earthworks material.

• Poor existing subgrade will require importation of select and upper zone of formation material to provide a suitable foundation for pavement layers.

3 KEY ASSUMPTIONS/COMMENTS

• The project will be undertaken in two adjoining construction packages roughly each of 1.3km.

• Utility adjustments can be undertaken in advance of roadworks, particularly on the northern contract

• Property acquisitions, or, initially at least, leases over land, will be undertaken so as to have necessary portions of land available prior to construction requirements including those for utility adjustments.

• • • •••


• • • •••

A P P E N D I X 7 . 2

CHAPTER 0SAMPLE VERBAL QUOTATION RECORD

• • • •••


QUOTATION RECEIVED BY TELEPHONE

Firm: .................................................................... Contact: .............................. Phone No.: ...............................

Job: .......................................................................................................................................................................

Service / Goods: ......................................................................................................................................................

Lump sum $ ...................................................... Time for Completion: ..........................................................

Included: .............................................................................................................................................................

Item No Description Unit Quantity Rate $

EXCLUSIONS / QUALIFICATIONS: _______________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Quotation received by: ..............................................................................................................................................

/ / 200 Time: AM/PM

• • • •••


• • • •••

A P P E N D I X 7 . 3

CHAPTER 0SAMPLE SITE VISIT CHECKLIST

• • • •••


Site Visit Checklist & Record

Site Visit Checklist.doc

Project : Tender No :

Location : Visit Date :

Attended By :

Name Organisation Name Organisation

Check Item

Not

A

pplic

able

Not

Sig

nific

ant

Impo

rtant

See

C

omm

ent Comments

1. ACCESS TO SITE a) Nearest railhead b) Nearest port c) Nearest airport d) Nearest centre or town e) Access roads to site

i) Existing roads ii) New temporary roads required iii) Cost of new work

f) Limitations – load limits, clearances, etc 2. NATURE OF SITE a) General description b) Altitude c) Weather and climate

i) Rainfall ii) Temperature iii) Winds iv) Seasons and storm exposure

d) River information i) Normal level ii) Normal velocity iii) Flood levels and frequencies iv) Maximum flood velocity v) Debris vi) Damage potential

/ /



Check Item

Not

A

pplic

able

Not

Sig

nific

ant

Impo

rtant

See

C

omm

ent Comments

e) Tidal Information i) Normal L.W./H.W./Range ii) Drainage iii) Tidal velocity/Sea conditions

f) Geotechnical Conditions i) Soli/rock types ii) Drainage iii) Preparation for temporary roads iv) Water table level v) Borehole information

g) Access roads to site i) Natural obstructions ii) Structures iii) Overhead services iv) Underground services

h) Safety/Health Hazard i) Asbestos ii) Potential air/water pollution iii) Fire hazard iv) Unsound existing structure

i) Environmental Protection 3. TEMPORARY WORKS &

UTILITIES

a) Clearing and preparation required i) Clearing ii) Cut/Fill iii) Fencing iv) Temporary roads v) Diversion of services vi) Cofferdams, river diversion, etc.

b) Locations for sheds, working areas, etc. c) Fresh water

i) Mains supply available ii) Authority iii) Reticulation and connection costs iv) Charges v) Other supply

d) Electricity i) Mains supply available ii) Authority iii) Voltage iv) Max. load v) Reticulation and connection costs vi) Charges

e) Telephone i) Availability ii) Connection costs



Check Item

Not

A

pplic

able

Not

Sig

nific

ant

Impo

rtant

See

C

omm

ent Comments

f) Sewer i) Availability ii) Authority iii) Reticulation and connection costs iv) Port-a-loo service costs

4. MATERIALS AND SERVICES a) Temporary materials and consumables

Hard filling Soft filling Road base Timber scantlings Piles and rounds Plywood Structural steel Petrol Fuel oil Other

b) Permanent materials –

Concrete - Coarse aggregate - Fine aggregate - Bulk cement - Bagged cement - Ready mix

Other c) Services and facilities available

Local suppliers Workshops Fabricators Public transport Plant hire Road transport Rain transport

d) Transport costs to site from appropriate centre

i) Road - materials - sheds and general

plant

- special plant ii) Rail - personnel - materials - sheds and general

plant

- special plant iii) Sea - materials - sheds and general

plant

- special plant



Check Item

Not

A

pplic

able

Not

Sig

nific

ant

Impo

rtant

See

C

omm

ent Comments

iv) Air - personnel - parcels 5. LABOUR a) Availability - tradesman - labourers - plant operators b) Quality and reliability c) Union activity d) Appropriate awards e) Over award payments and site

allowances

f) Other current projects in area g) Board and lodgings for imported labour

i) Availability and location ii) Standard iii) Cost

h) Camp site if required i) Location ii) Cost of land iii) Clearing required iv) Services available v) Food costs vi) Catering contractors

i) Transport facilities nearest centre to site i) Availability and frequency ii) Mileage from centre to closest point iii) Distance closest point to site iv) Cost of fares

j) Staff accommodation i) Rent if available ii) purchase

Notes:

• • • •••

A P P E N D I X 7 . 4


• • • •••





Code

Service Competition

Category


Wagner C EC


MC RTAD


Region D RTAD


Region PD RTAD


MD RTAD


MA RTAD


Job Subjobs Subjob

Component Code

Service Competition

Category


MI RTAD


• • • •••

A P P E N D I X 7 . 5

CHAPTER 0SAMPLE ESTIMATE REVIEW SHEET

• • • •••


Estimate Review

Project Name: Review Date: Attendance at Review

Name Position/Role in Estimate Name Position/Role in Estimate

CHECKLIST

Ref Descritption Action Ref Description Action 1 Design OK

Action – See Minutes Notes – See Minutes

10. Subcontractors

** OK **Action-See Minutes **Notes – See Minutes

2. Construction Method - Planning - sequencing - temporary work

OK Action – See Minutes Notes – See Minutes

11. Major Plant - types - rates

**OK ** Action – See Minutes ** Notes – See Minutes

3. Programme - key dates - critical activities - contingency


12. Temporary Works - design detail - costing of


4. Direct Work Cost Estimate


13. Provisional Sums/Dayworks **OK ** Action – See Minutes ** Notes – See Minutes

5. Indirect Cost Estimate OK Action – See Minutes Notes – See Minutes

14. Commercial


6. Key indicators - major quantities - productivity


15. Risk and Opportunity Analysis **OK ** Action – See Minutes ** Notes – See Minutes

7. Resources - availability - cost


16. Documents to be submitted **OK ** Action – See Minutes ** Notes – See Minutes

8. Estimate Summary OK Action – See Minutes Notes – See Minutes

17. Clarifications and Qualifications **OK ** Action – See Minutes ** Notes – See Minutes

9. Material Suppliers


18. Final Adjustments **OK ** Action – See Minutes ** Notes – See Minutes

/ /

Estimate Review

Notes/Actions Ref. No.

Minutes/Actions

By Whom/When

• • • •••

A P P E N D I X 7 . 6

CHAPTER 0SAMPLE DETAILED ESTIMATE REPORT

• • • •••


DETAILED ESTIMATE REPORT

MR 635 – OLD WINDSOR ROAD AND MR184 - WINDSOR ROAD

SUNNYHOLT ROAD TO MERRIVILLE ROAD STANHOPE GARDENS

MR 635 - OLD WINDSOR ROAD AND MR184 - WINDSOR ROAD

SUNNYHOLT ROAD TO MERRIVILLE ROAD


CONTENTS DETAILED ESTIMATE REPORT.................................................................................

CONTENTS.....................................................................................................................

DETAILED ESTIMATE REPORT.................................................................................

1 Summary ................................................................................................................1

2 Scope......................................................................................................................1

3 Key assumptions ....................................................................................................3

4 Risk contingency assessment.................................................................................4

5 Estimating process .................................................................................................4

6 Reality check..........................................................................................................4

7 Construction risk assessment .................................................................................5

8 Peer review.............................................................................................................5

Appendix A – Detailed Estimate, Estimate Summary and Cash Flow Appendix B – Concept Design Plan

MR635 Old Windsor Road & MR184 Windsor Road - Suunnyholt Road to Merriville Road - Detailed Estimate Report

DtEsRpt.doc Page 1 27/03/01

MR 635 - OLD WINDSOR ROAD AND MR 184 - WINDSOR ROAD SUNNYHOLT ROAD TO MERRIVILLE ROAD


1 SUMMARY

The estimated cost of the Project is $32 million in 2000/2001 financial year dollars or $33 million in out turn dollars. See Appendix A for the Estimate Summary, Subsidiary Sheets and Cash Flow Table.

This is a Detailed Estimate.

The estimate is based on the Detailed Design (part complete) dated February 2001, Concept Design dated January 2001 and draft Review of Environmental Factors (REF) dated December 2000.

2 SCOPE

The following information provides a description of the scope of work:

Location The Project is located between the Sunnyholt Road on Old Windsor Road and 300m north of Merriville Road on Windsor Road. It is located within both the City of Blacktown (western side) and Baulkham Hills Shire (eastern side).

ROADLOC Reference

Old Windsor Road Start: 0000635/0120/A/0.150

Finish: 0000635/0120/A/1.950

Windsor Road Start: 0000184/0230/A/0.000

Finish: 0000184/0230/A/0.782

Limits of Work The work extends from the Old Windsor Road / Sunnyholt Road intersection and extends northwards along Old Windsor Road and then Windsor Road to 300m north of the intersection of Windsor Road and Merriville Road.

Length: 2,700m.

The work is shown on the Concept Design Plan attached in Appendix B.

Design Drawings Concept Drawing No.0635.040.CD.0001 (attached to the REF)

Detail Design Drawing 0635.040.RC.2501 (Sunnyholt Road to Caddies Creek)

* Note: Detail Design of the next section from Caddies Creek to north of Merriville Road is not complete at the time of completion of the estimate.



Type of Construction Reconstruction and widening on a new and existing alignment, with the Old Windsor Road portion being on new alignment slightly to west of existing and the Windsor Road portion being widened on the existing Windsor Road alignment.

Cross Section & Design Divided carriageway with two 3.25m wide lanes in each direction along Old Windsor Road and then three 3.25m wide lanes in each direction from 200m south of the Old Windsor Road / Windsor Road intersection to the northern limit of the work. A shoulder, 1.5m wide is provided on each carriageway on Old Windsor Road plus a 1.5m verge in fill areas or a 1.0m SO gutter in cut areas. Median width is 4.5m minimum up to 9.0m.

On Windsor Road a 1.5m shoulder has been allowed in the southbound direction along with 0.7m wide SA kerb and gutter on both sides.

Turn lanes of 3.0m are provided at the Samantha Riley Drive, Windsor Road and Merriville Road intersections. Provision for double right turns is incorporated at all intersections plus a double left turn out of Samantha Riley Drive (east) into Old Windsor Road (south) and Windsor Road (south) into Windsor Road (east)

A 3.0m off road shared pedestrian / cycle path has been provided on the western side of the new road.

New traffic signals are to be provided at the Samantha Riley Drive / Old Windsor Road and Old Windsor Road / Windsor Road intersections. Reconstruction of existing traffic signals is to be undertaken at the Merriville Road / Windsor Road intersection.

Pavement Design The pavement design is 185mm of asphalt over 240mm of lean mix concrete over 300mm of select material zone.

Major Structures A 14m extension to an existing 5 cell box culvert over Caddies Creek on Old Windsor Road forms part of the work.

Property Affect Property acquisition requirements are outlined in Appendix C of the Concept Engineering Design Report.

Acquisitions are required for 4 properties along the Windsor Road section of the project: Villaworld and the James Ruse Hotel on the west and the Muir property and Sydney Water property on the east.

Combined acquisitions for the road widening and transitway project are required to the north of the Old Windsor Road / Windsor Road intersection on the eastern side (Muir and Sydney Water properties). Only costs associated with the road widening have been included in this estimate.



Public Utilities The public utility impacts are outlined in the Public Utility Impact Report. Potential impacts are on overhead electrical services of Integral Energy, underground watermains of Sydney Water (generally road crossings), underground gas mains and a regulator of AGL and major underground telecommunications cables of Telstra and Optus. The Telstra cables are particularly significant coming out of the Kellyville exchange with 2 separate 2400 pair cables, one on each side of the road, plus optical fibre and smaller cable is being affected.

Physical Constraints • Heritage section of Old Windsor Road on eastern side of corridor

• Prescribed dam upstream of Caddies Creek on western side of corridor

• Stanhope Gardens residential subdivision on western side of corridor

• Trunk water, gas and telecommunications utility services along western side of corridor.

• Existing Old Windsor and Windsor Roads and the need to maintain traffic flow.

• Commercial businesses along Windsor Road between Old Windsor Road and Merriville Road (eastern side)

• Commercial businesses along Windsor Road adjacent to Merriville Road intersection.

Environmental Constraints • A number of heritage sites are present in the area, in particular sections of the existing Old

Windsor Road and historic boundary markers.

• Effects of noise and vibration on nearby residences

• Sensitivity of the creek and watercourses areas to development

• Need to maintain or improve the visual amenity along the upgraded route

Geotechnical Issues • The ground conditions, particularly at creek areas, may be susceptible to poor subsurface

conditions leading to significant quantities of unsuitable earthworks material.

• Poor existing subgrade will require importation of select and upper zone of formation material to provide a suitable foundation for pavement layers.

3 KEY ASSUMPTIONS/COMMENTS

• The project will be undertaken in two adjoining construction packages roughly each of 1.3km.

• Utility adjustments can be undertaken in advance of roadworks, particularly on the northern contract

• Property acquisitions, or, initially at least, leases over land, will be undertaken so as to have necessary portions of land available prior to construction requirements including those for utility adjustments.



4 RISK CONTINGENCY ASSESSMENT

Risk Contingency Incomplete detail design

The Project Management Note, PMN-004 recommends are contingency range for detailed estimates of 10-20%. Due to the detail design being incomplete the upper extent of this range is being adopted generally in the estimate i.e. 20%

Unsuitable ground conditions

Detailed analysis of the geotechnical reports has been undertaken by the designers in determining likely amounts of unsuitable material. The figure calculated has been increased by 50% which corresponds with approximately 10% of the earthworks cut/fill quantity.

Utility adjustments will have consequential effect requiring greater scope of work

Allow for increased contingency to 30% ($825K)

Property acquisitions may not be agreed in a timely manner

Identify timeline for acquisitions with alternative/parallel strategy for compulsory acquisitions. Also investigate leases of land prior to finalisation of acquisition

5 ESTIMATING PROCESS The quantities for the estimate were prepared by the road designers, Hyder Consulting. The estimate has been prepared using rates from similar recent projects obtained by the Project Support Officer, David Adams. The rates have been reviewed by the Project Manager, Peter Letts. 6 REALITY CHECK

This Project Cost/lane km

Earthworks rate per m3

Pavement rate per m2

Old Windsor Road / Windsor Road – Sunnyholt Road to Merriville Road

2.18M 57.57 139.97

Comparison Projects Cost/lane km

Earthworks rate per m3

Pavement rate per m2

Old Windsor Road – Norbrik to Sunnyholt

2.32M 48.48 106.63

Cowpasture Road Section 5 2.45M 45.23 100.08

Cumberland Highway 1.3M 37.02 123.00

Castlereagh Road 2.6M 53.00 105.00

Notes 1. All costs are in 2000/2001 dollars. 2. OWR/WR amounts include contingency allowance generally of 20% 3. Cumberland Highway excludes acquisitions and utility adjustments 4. Castlereagh Road includes high utility cost of $6.5M



7 CONSTRUCTION RISK ASSESSMENT

High Risk Items Risk Response Culvert extension at Caddies Creek delayed by poor ground or water flows

Work separated out from contract works to be undertaken as advance construction so as to isolate any potential delays

Unsuitable ground conditions

Unsuitable allowance of 10% of earthworks quantity and 20% of drainage excavation allowed in tender Schedule of Rates.

Utility adjustments may not be completed before construction commences

Include specification clauses on access to portions of the work which deal with the timing of utility adjustments and allow for their completion. Also review staging to minimise timing risk.

Access to property may not be available before construction commenced.

Include specification clauses on access to portions of the work which deal with the timing of utility adjustments and allow for their completion. Also review staging to minimise timing risk.

8 PEER REVIEW

A peer review of the estimate was undertaken by Dennis Woodbridge, Project Services Manager, PMS Sydney.

Prepared by

Peter Letts Project Manager PMS Sydney


DtEsRpt.doc 27/03/01

Appendix A

Detailed Estimate

Project Estimate Summary Sheet

Project: Reconstruction of Old Windsor Road/Windsor Road Prepared by: Peter Letts Sunnyholt Road to Caddies Creek - 4 lanes (1.0km), Caddies Creek to Merriville Road - 6 lanes (1.5km)

Project No: 64893 Date: 27 March 2001 Estimate Type: Detail Design

Item Estimate Contingency Estimate % of Total Comments/Assumptions

(excluding% Amount (including contingency)

Estimate

contingency)

1. Project Development

1 (a) Route/Concept/EIS or REF $181,000 10% $18,100 $199,100 Draft Concept designprovided/REF almost complete1 (b) Project Management Services $90,200 20% $18,040 $108,2401 (c) Client Representation $26,040 20% $5,208 $31,248 20 % of Client Rep costs for whole of project

Sub total $297,240 14% $41,348 $338,588 1% .

2. Investigation and Design

2 (a) Investigation and Design $445,000 20% $89,000 $534,000 stage 1 complete, stage 2 in progress2 (b) Project Management Services $50,500 20% $10,100 $60,6002 (c) Client Representation $26,040 20% $5,208 $31,248 20 % of Client Rep costs for whole of project2 (d) Community Relations $150,000 30% $45,000 $195,000

Sub total $671,540 22% $149,308 $820,848 3%

3. Property Acquisitions

3 (a) Acquire Property $4,675,000 20% $935,000 $5,610,0003 (b) Professional Services for Property 20% $0 $0 Included in 3(a) 3 (c) Project Management Services 20% $0 $0 Included in 2(b) 3 (d) Client Representation 20% $0 $0

Sub total $4,675,000 20% $935,000 $5,610,000 18%

4. Public Utility Adjustments

4 (a) Adjust Utilities $2,785,000 30% $835,500 $3,620,5004 (b) Project Management Services $49,300 20% $9,860 $59,1604 (c) Client Representation 20% $0 $0

Sub total $2,834,300 30% $845,360 $3,679,660 12%

5. Construction

5 (a) - Infrastructure - earthworks $8,730,525 20% $1,746,105 $10,476,6305 (b) - Infrastructure - pavements $7,535,220 20% $1,507,044 $9,042,264 Based on pavement (185mm leanmix/150mm AC)5 (c) - Infrastructure - structures 20% $0 $05 (d) - Project Management Services $1,237,600 20% $247,520 $1,485,1205 (e) - Client Representation $78,120 20% $15,624 $93,744 60 % of Client Rep costs for whole of project

Sub total $17,581,465 20% $3,516,293 $21,097,758 67%

6. Handover

6 (a) Refurbish old route 20% $0 $06 (b) Project data and performance $40,000 20% $8,000 $48,0006 (c) Project Management Services $20,000 20% $4,000 $24,0006 (d) Client Representation 20% $0 $0

Sub total $60,000 20% $12,000 $72,000 0%

TOTAL $26,119,545 21% $5,499,309 $31,618,854

Total Amount % of Total Estimate

Project Management $1,737,120 5.5%

Client Representation $156,240 0.49%

Reality checks: 1. Cost/ km $11.71 M 2.7 km

2. Cost/lane km $2.18 M 14.5 km

3. Cost/m3 earthworks $30.42 44640 m3

4. Cost/m2 pavement $139.97 64600 m2

5. Cost/m2 deck area (Bridges)

project estimate summary sheet.XLSsummary

- -Item Description Unit Rate $ Quantity Amount $A Concept Development 0.57%A1 Field survey and data acquisition Item 20000 1 20000A3 Concept design Item 50000 1 50000A4 Estimating and economic analysis Item 0 1 0A5 Value management study Item 5000 1 5000A6 Flora and fauna study Item 0 1 0A7 Heritage study Item 0 1 0A8 Noise study Item 0 1 0A9 Environmental appraisal (EIS or REF) Item 35000 1 35000A10 Environmental Assessment Report Item 15000 1 15000A11 Geotechnical appraisal Item 5000 1 5000A12 Misc previous costs Item 51000 1 51000

Subtotal $181,000.

B Detail Design and Documentation 1.41%B1 Road, drainage and water quality desig Item 250000 1 250000B2 Enviromental management plan Item 5000 1 5000B3 Pavement design/geotech Item 75000 1 75000B4 Detail Design - PMS/Misc Item 40000 1 40000B5 Document preparation Item 20000 1 20000B6 Traffic signal advice and review Item 10000 1 10000B7 Roadscape & urban design Item 20000 1 20000B8 Landscape design Item 20000 1 20000B9 Signposting design Item 5000 1 5000

Subtotal $445,000.

C Property Affects 14.76%C1 Acquisition - previous Item 3900000 1 3900000C2 Cadastral survey and plans Item 75000 1 75000C3 Acquisition - Muir Item 500000 1 500000C4 Acquisition - Villaworld Item 100000 1 100000C5 Acquisition - James Ruse Hotel Item 100000 1 100000

Subtotal $4,675,000.

D Utility Adjustments 8.80%D1 Electrical - adjust poles Sunnyholt Item 10000 5 50000D2 Electrical - lighting to intersections Item 200000 3 600000D3 Electrical - adjust poles Windsor Item 10000 15 150000D4 Telstra - adjust 600pr Metre 300 500 150000D5 Telstra - adjust 2400pr Metre 600 1000 600000D6 Telstra - adjust optical fibre Metre 1000 500 500000D7 Telstra - adjust pits No 30000 5 150000D8 Telstra - raise pit at Sam Riley Item 30000 1 30000D9 Gas - adjust regulator Item 150000 1 150000D10 Gas - adjust services (160mm PE) Metre 100 40 4000D11 Water - road crossing (900mm) Metre 1250 60 75000D12 Water - road crossing (450mm) Metre 800 60 48000D13 Water - road crossing (250mm) Metre 600 40 24000D14 Water - road crossing (450mm) Metre 800 40 32000D15 Water - road crossing (450mm) Metre 800 40 32000D16 Water - road crossing (600mm) Metre 1000 40 40000D17 Optus - adjust cable/fibre Metre 500 200 100000D18 Optus - adjust pit Item 30000 1 30000G1P2 Protect utilities(cont 1) Item 10000 1 10000G1P2 Protect utilities (cont 2) Item 10000 1 10000


E Community Relations 0.47%E1 Community consultn. for planning and dItem 100000 1 100000E2 Community liaison during construction Item 20000 1 20000E3 Political events (announcements and opItem 5000 2 10000E4 Newsletters - print & deliver Item 5000 4 20000

Subtotal $150,000.

F Preliminary Construction 0.38%G1P1 Site offices and facilities (cont 1) Item 10000 1 10000G1P1 Site offices and facilities (cont 2) Item 10000 1 10000F2 Project signs No 5000 3 15000R71P2 Property Adjustments - access road Item 10000 1 10000F4 Control surveys Item 50000 1 50000R161P6 Remove existing fencing Metre 15 1080 16200G36P1 Building condition reports (cont 1) Each 350 8 2800G36P1 Building condition reports (cont 2) Each 350 8 2800G1P1 Site monitoring - Aboriginal (cont 1) Item 2500 1 2500G1P1 Site monitoring - Aboriginal (cont 2) Item 2500 1 2500

Subtotal $121,800.

G Provision for Traffic 0.85%

Sunnyholt to Caddies Creek - 4 lanes, Caddies Creek to Merrivile - 6 lanes

Detailed Estimate Project: MR 635 Old Windsor Road/Windsor Road

Sunnyholt Road to Merriville RoadCity of Blacktown

Detail estimate.xlsdetail estimate

G10P1 Provision of signs, barriers (cont 1) Item 100000 1 100000G10P2 Provision for traffic switches (cont 1) Item 35000 1 35000G10P1 Provision of signs, barriers (cont 2) Item 100000 1 100000G10P2 Provision for traffic switches (cont 2) Item 35000 1 35000

Subtotal $270,000.

H Earthworks 10.03%R41P1 Clearing and grubbing Ha 8000 6.6 52800R44P1 Top soil stockpiling Cu M 18 12830 230940R44P2 Earthworks - cut to fill Cu M 20 11000 220000R44P3 Earthworks - import Cu M 35 8500 297500R44P5 Selected sub-base Cu M 50 7920 396000R44P6 Earthworks - cut to spoil Cu M 30 1500 45000R44P4 Unsuitable Cu M 35 1500 52500R49P1 Verges Cu M 80 1500 120000R41P1 Clearing and grubbing Ha 8000 8.8 70400R44P1 Top soil stockpiling Cu M 18 15000 270000R44P2 Earthworks - cut to fill Cu M 20 16650 333000R44P3 Earthworks - import Cu M 35 5290 185150R44P5 Selected sub-base Cu M 50 13440 672000R44P6 Earthworks - cut to spoil Cu M 30 1700 51000R44P4 Unsuitable Cu M 35 1700 59500R49P1 Verges Cu M 80 1500 120000


I Drainage 10.93%R11P2 Excavate for stormwater pipes/pits Cu M 85 3790 322150R11P4 Unsuitable Cu M 85 750 63750R11P5.1 Pipes - 225 dia Metre 125 55 6875R11P5.2 Pipes - 375 dia Metre 135 715 96525R11P5.3 Pipes - 450 dia Metre 155 55 8525R11P5.4 Pipes - 525 dia Metre 190 145 27550R11P5.5 Pipes - 600 dia Metre 200 75 15000R11P5.6 Pipes - 675 dia Metre 215 280 60200R11P5.7 Pipes - 750 dia Metre 235 215 50525R11P5.8 Pipes - 825 dia Metre 245 70 17150R11P5.9 Pipes - 900 dia Metre 260 275 71500R11P7.1 Gully pit S01 Each 2000 45 90000R11P7.2 Gully pit SAS Each 2000 1 2000R11P7.3 Gully pit SA2 Each 2100 4 8400R11P7.4 Gully pit SA3 Each 2300 2 4600R11P7.5 Median pit Each 1800 8 14400R11P7.6 Gully pit SF Each 2000 2 4000R11P7.7 Headwalls Each 2000 2 4000R11P7.8 Centrifugal drop structure Each 120000 1 120000R33P1 Excavate for trench drains Cu M 35 310 10850R33P2 Flat batter outlets Each 270 2 540R33P3.1 Corrugated drainage pipe - 100mm Metre 12 195 2340R33P3.2 Slotted filter strip Metre 15 5100 76500R33P5 Type S sand filter material Cu M 45 215 9675R33P8 Cleanouts Each 150 150 22500R15P1.1 K & G Type SA Metre 45 285 12825R15P1.2 K & G Type SF Metre 30 2630 78900R15P1.3 K & G Type SO Metre 45 1710 76950R15P1.4 K & G Type SM Metre 25 140 3500R11P2 Excavate for stormwater pipes/pits Cu M 85 3790 322150R11P4 Unsuitable Cu M 85 750 63750R11P5.1 Pipes - 225 dia Metre 125 55 6875R11P5.2 Pipes - 375 dia Metre 135 715 96525R11P5.3 Pipes - 450 dia Metre 155 55 8525R11P5.4 Pipes - 525 dia Metre 190 145 27550R11P5.5 Pipes - 600 dia Metre 200 75 15000R11P5.6 Pipes - 675 dia Metre 215 280 60200R11P5.7 Pipes - 750 dia Metre 235 215 50525R11P5.8 Pipes - 825 dia Metre 245 70 17150R11P5.9 Pipes - 900 dia Metre 260 275 71500R11P7.1 Gully pit S01 Each 2000 45 90000R11P7.2 Gully pit SAS Each 2000 1 2000R11P7.3 Gully pit SA2 Each 2100 4 8400R11P7.4 Gully pit SA3 Each 2300 2 4600R11P7.5 Median pit Each 1800 8 14400R11P7.6 Gully pit SF Each 2000 2 4000R11P7.7 Headwalls Each 2000 2 4000R11P7.8 Centrifugal drop structure Each 120000 1 120000R33P1 Excavate for trench drains Cu M 35 330 11550R33P2 Flat batter outlets Each 270 2 540R33P3.1 Corrugated drainage pipe - 100mm Metre 12 200 2400R33P3.2 Slotted filter strip Metre 15 5450 81750R33P5 Type S sand filter material Cu M 45 230 10350R33P8 Cleanouts Each 150 185 27750R15P1.1 K & G Type SA Metre 45 2390 107550R15P1.2 K & G Type SF Metre 30 2940 88200R15P1.3 K & G Type SO Metre 45 0 0R15P1.4 K & G Type SM Metre 25 125 3125I1 Caddies Creek Culvert Item 400000 1 400000


I2 RHIC Culvert Item 460000 1 460000Subtotal $3,462,095

.J Pavements 23.79%R82P1 Leanmix subbase Cu M 170 5940 1009800R82P2 Finish & cure subbase Sq M 5 24770 123850R82P3 Surface debonding Sq M 4 24770 99080R101P1 Cold Milling - 40mm deep Sq M 10 1590 15900R116P3.1 AC20 - 70mm deep Sq M 20 24480 489600R116P3.2 AC20 - 70mm deep Sq M 20 24490 489800R116P3.3 AC14 - 45mm deep Sq M 15 24950 374250R116P6 AC20 Cu M 310 64 19840R173P1.1 Footpath - 75mm thick Sq M 35 4050 141750R173P1.2 Median & Misc paving - 100mm thick Sq M 50 1570 78500R82P1 Leanmix subbase Cu M 170 10300 1751000R82P2 Finish & cure subbase Sq M 5 42925 214625R82P3 Surface debonding Sq M 4 42925 171700R101P1 Cold Milling - 40mm deep Sq M 10 1590 15900R116P3.1 AC20 - 70mm deep Sq M 20 36615 732300R116P3.2 AC20 - 70mm deep Sq M 20 39625 792500R116P3.3 AC14 - 45mm deep Sq M 15 39625 594375R116P6 AC20 Cu M 310 0 0R173P1.1 Footpath - 75mm thick Sq M 35 3520 123200R173P1.2 Median & Misc paving - 100mm thick Sq M 50 1855 92750J1 AC overlay by Asset Item 203000 1 203000

Subtotal $7,533,720

K Structures 0.00%G1P5 Retaining walls - temporary Sq M 100 15 1500

. Subtotal $1,500

M Environmental Facilities 1.78%G36P2 Site Monitoring Item 20000 1 20000R1P1 Sedimentation control basin Each 15000 1 15000R1P3 Sedimentation control trap Each 150 62 9300R1P6 Removal of sediment traps Each 60 62 3720R162P1 Spray weeds with herbicide Sq M 1 23170 23170R162P2 Retopsoiling less than 3 to 1 batter Sq M 5 22660 113300R162P4 Seed drilling Sq M 4 22660 90640R162P6 Retopsoiling more than 3 to 1 batter Sq M 5 515 2575R162P9 Hydroseeding Sq M 2 515 1030R162P10 Straw mulching Sq M 2 515 1030R162P20 Watering Item 1500 1 1500G36P2 Site Monitoring Item 20000 1 20000R1P1 Sedimentation control basin Each 15000 1 15000R1P3 Sedimentation control trap Each 150 62 9300R1P6 Removal of sediment traps Each 60 62 3720R162P1 Spray weeds with herbicide Sq M 1 23170 23170R162P2 Retopsoiling less than 3 to 1 batter Sq M 5 22660 113300R162P4 Seed drilling Sq M 4 22660 90640R162P6 Retopsoiling more than 3 to 1 batter Sq M 5 515 2575R162P9 Hydroseeding Sq M 2 515 1030R162P10 Straw mulching Sq M 2 515 1030R162P20 Watering Item 1500 1 1500

Subtotal $562,530.

N Traffic Management and Safety 3.59%R131P1 Install guide posts Each 100 25 2500R131P2 Remove guide posts Each 50 25 1250R132P1 Remove safety barriers Metre 15 100 1500R132P2.1 Remove TT terminals Each 250 2 500R132P2.2 Remove MELT terminals Each 350 2 700R132P3 Post & rail safety barriers Metre 85 55 4675R132P5 Wire rope safety barrier Metre 120 1050 126000R132P8.1 Construct MELT terminal Each 3500 1 3500R132P8.2 Construct TT terminal Each 2000 1 2000R145P5 Pavement markings - lines Metre 3 8340 25020R145P6 Pavement markings - transverse Sq M 35 110 3850R141P15 Pavement markings - symbols Sq M 35 11 385R142P2 Install raised pavement markers Each 6 415 2490R142P3 Remove raised pavement markers Each 3 20 60R143P1 Signposting Each 500 35 17500RS10P1 Excavation for RTA cableways Cu M 35 515 18025RS10P2 Install conduits for cableways Metre 55 2440 134200G1P4 Traffic Signals Each 150000 1 150000R131P1 Install guide posts Each 100 25 2500R131P2 Remove guide posts Each 50 25 1250R132P1 Remove safety barriers Metre 15 100 1500R132P2.1 Remove TT terminals Each 250 2 500R132P2.2 Remove MELT terminals Each 350 2 700R132P3 Post & rail safety barriers Metre 85 55 4675R132P5 Wire rope safety barrier Metre 120 1050 126000R132P8.1 Construct MELT terminal Each 3500 1 3500R132P8.2 Construct TT terminal Each 2000 1 2000R145P5 Pavement markings - lines Metre 3 8340 25020


R145P6 Pavement markings - transverse Sq M 35 110 3850R141P15 Pavement markings - symbols Sq M 35 11 385R142P2 Install raised pavement markers Each 6 415 2490R142P3 Remove raised pavement markers Each 3 20 60R143P1 Signposting Each 500 35 17500RS10P1 Excavation for RTA cableways Cu M 35 515 18025RS10P2 Install conduits for cableways Metre 55 2440 134200G1P4 Traffic Signals Each 150000 2 300000


O Project Finalisation 0.13%O1 Handover to asset management Item 10000 1 10000O2 Post construction evaluations and audit Item 30000 1 30000

Subtotal $40,000.

P Project Management 4.73%P1 Project management - concept develop Item 90200 1 90200P2 Project management - detail design Item 50500 1 50500P3 Project management - community liaisoItem 50600 1 50600P4 Project management - property and util Item 49300 1 49300P5 Project management - construction Item 1237600 1 1237600P6 Project management - handover and m Item 20000 1 20000


Q Client Representation 0.41%Q1 Overheads - Client Services DirectorateItem 0.005 $26,039,945 130200

Subtotal $130,200.

R Contingencies 17.35%R1 Contingency - Concept development Item 0.1 $181,000 18100R2 Contingency - Detail design and documItem 0.2 $445,000 89000R3 Contingency - Property affects Item 0.2 $4,675,000 935000R4 Contingency - Utility adjustments Item 0.3 $2,785,000 835500R5 Contingency - Community relations Item 0.2 $150,000 30000R6 Contingency - Preconstruction activitiesItem 0.2 $121,800 24360R7 Contingency - Provision for traffic Item 0.2 $270,000 54000R8 Contingency - Earthworks Item 0.2 $3,175,790 635158R9 Contingency - Drainage Item 0.2 $3,462,095 692419R10 Contingency - Pavements Item 0.2 $7,533,720 1506744R11 Contingency - Structures Item 0.2 $1,500 300R13 Contingency - Environmental facilities Item 0.2 $562,530 112506R14 Contingency - Traffic safety and manag Item 0.2 $1,138,310 227662R15 Contingency - Project finalisation Item 0.2 $40,000 8000R16 Contingency - Project management Item 0.2 $1,498,200 299640R17 Contingency - Overheads Item 0.2 $130,200 26040


- -Project total (2000/01$) $31,664,574

.Construction total $19,518,894

.Project total (Out turn$) $32,711,000

Contract 1 - Sunnyholt Road to Caddies Creek $7,802,712

Contract 2 - Caddies Creek to Merriville Road $10,386,582

-All dollar amounts have been rounded to the nearest $ 1000 This concept estimate is based on preliminary rates and quantities and is intended only for concept assessment, forward planning and programming purposes. The amounts are expressed in 2000/01 dollars. The out turn cost is based on inflation of 3 % per annum, and annual allocations starting in1999/00 of $4541K, $3800K, $18000K, $5500K, $0K, $0K. The estimate is based on the assumptions that construction is by contract, weather normal, funding adequate for an efficient rate of construction

Compiled27-Mar-01



DtEsRpt.doc 27/03/01

Appendix B

Concept Design Plan

• • • •••

A P P E N D I X 7 . 7


• • • •••


• • • •••

A P P E N D I X 7 . 8


• • • •••


RTA Project Estimating Project Completion Feedback 8-1 Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

• • • •••

C H A P T E R 8CHAPTER 0PROJECT COMPLETION FEEDBACK

8.1 Summary

RTA’s requirements for project completion feedback in relation toestimating are under review. In the meantime, reference should bemade to the Procedure RTA-CSD-PMS-PR-P-84 entilied “Post-Completion Project Review”. A copy of the procedure is contained inAppendix 8.1


• • • •••

2 Chapter 8 RTA Project EstimatingIssued December 2001 Edition 1, Revision 0

(This page intentionally left balnk)

• • • •••

A P P E N D I X 8 . 1

CHAPTER 0PROCEDURE RTA-CSD-PMS-PR-P-84


• • • •••


Document No: RTA-CSD-PMS-PR-P-84 Issue 2.0 Page 1 of 4

Post-Completion Project Review

Revision History Version Date Description Checked Approved

1.0 4/1999 First Issue K Verma R H Brown 1.1 11/1999 Changed to

reflect revised organisational

structure

K Verma J Farrell

R H Brown

2.0 10/2000 Changed to reflect RTA

Project management Guidelines

PMO R H Brown



PURPOSE The purpose of this procedure is to describe the process of project review, which is to be undertaken upon finalisation and handover of the project.

SCOPE Applicable for all development projects undertaken by Project Management Services Branch.

OVERVIEW Post-completion project review must be undertaken for all development projects and is the responsibility of the Project Manager. The review includes a broad assessment of all aspects of the project, including: • Review of overall project outcomes against project objectives • Review of the performance of contractors • Self-assessment of the performance of PMS in the provision of project

management services • A summary of lessons learnt from the project that can be passed on to other PMS

project managers.

All of these reviews should be completed by the Project Manager within 1 month of project handover.

RESPONSIBILITIES The Project Manager is responsible for undertaking and documenting each of the reviews outlined in this procedure. The Project Manager is also responsible for distributing outcomes of these reviews to the Project Management Development Manager, Project Management Office. The Project Management Development Manager, PMO is responsible for reviewing project review documentation, for initiating improvements in project delivery methodology and for distribution of project review documentation to Project Managers through PMS Learning Workshops. The Contract Development Manager, PMO is responsible for reviewing the results of contractor reviews and for initiating improvements in contract delivery The Quality and Systems Manager PMO, is responsible for initiating and managing system improvements to address issues raised as the result of project reviews.



ACTIONS

1. Performance Against Project Objectives The Project Manager is responsible for undertaking a review with the Client’s Representative of overall project performance against the Client’s project objectives. These objectives may be either stated (as per the project brief) or implied, and should focus special attention upon environmental and community involvement issues. The Project Manager shall document the discussion and a copy of the review shall be issued to the Project Services Manager, and the Project Management Development Manager for information.

2. Contract Performance The Project Manager will complete a performance review of the Contractor in accordance with the standard RTA Form 517 The Project Manager will complete a performance review of Consultants and Professional Service Contractors in accordance with the standard RTA Form 550 These forms are available in RTA forms manager, located on the intranet. These forms are also built within PROMIS and linked with Contract Finalisation Reports. A copy of these reviews shall be issued to the Senior Project Manager/Project Services Manager, and the Contract Development Manager for information.

3. Management Performance The Project Manager will complete a “self-assessment” which reviews the effectiveness of PMS services for the project. This review will include: • Effectiveness of PMS systems and controls in the management of the project • Review of actual PMS project management costs against budgeted fees • Effectiveness in delivery of the project to budget and program • Breakdown of project costs usingthe Project Management Guidelines, Tables 6.1

& 6.2 in PMG-01 “Level 1 & 2 Benchmark Rates Forms”. This will be issued to the Estimating Manager, PMO to assist with furture estimates.

A copy of the review shall be issued to the Project Services Manager and the Manager, PMO and will be used as a basis for ongoing business improvement.



4. Learning The Project Manager will document a summary report of lessons learnt from the projects. The report should be structured under the following headings as applicable: • Objectives • Environmental Assessment • Concept Design • Detailed Design • Construction • Management • Community Involvement • Risk Management • Environmental Protection

A copy of this document shall be issued to the Project Management Development Manager for dissemination of information to all PMS offices and as a basis for ongoing business improvement.

5. Learning Workshops Upon review of the above documentation the Project Management Development Manager may determine that there would be a benefit in conducting a workshop for project management staff to discuss project management issues in the form of a case study. If a workshop is held, the Project Manager will hand over all presentation materials to the Project Development Manager at completion of the workshop for inclusion in a central reference file.

QUALITY RECORDS Copies of all reports and reviews as referenced in this report are to be retained in the project file. The Project Development Manager is responsible for retaining all learning workshop training records. The Contract Development Manager is responsible for retaining all records of Contractor performance review.

REFERENCES

RTA Form 550 Performance Report on Consultants and Professional Service Contractors RTA Form 517 Performance Report on Construction Industry Contractors

ATTACHMENTS for issue with this procedure

Nil

RTA Project Estimating Contract Variations 9 - 1Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

• • • •••

C H A P T E R 9CHAPTER 0CONTRACT VARIATIONS

9.1 Summary

This section sets down the processes for the valuation of contractvariations.

9.2 Contract Variations

The principles utilised in the preparation of pre-contract estimates canalso be adopted when assessing major variations prior to them beingproposed by RTA, and in assessing variation requests from acontractor.

The pricing of a variation must be prepared in a way that is explicit andconsistent and which takes into account the method of construction andthe circumstances and timing during which the variation occurs. Asound pricing exercise can only be performed when each operation oritem is analysed into its simplest elements and the cost estimatedmethodically on the basis of factual information. This pre-supposes thatthe variation cannot be priced by reference to contract rates.

The pricing of a major variation may have important and far-reachingeffects. The extent of the impact that a major variation may have on aproject has to be considered and taken into account and reflected in thefinal value of the variation. The most frequent consequence of theintroduction of contract variations is that the contractor will make aclaim for additional time and cost. Where appropriate, it is a goodvariation pricing practice to take this into account at the time ofagreeing the variation.

It must also be noted that a variation may also result in the deletion ofcertain parts of the works and a possible reduction in the time requiredto perform the variation.

• • • •••


One of the fundamental principles of pricing contract variations is that,in common with the pricing of the original estimate, the items oroperations are priced net, that is, it should initially be an assessment ofdirect costs without any adjustments for indirects, overheads and profit.The calculation of indirects, overheads and profits should only beaddressed when the direct cost pricing has been completed and theadditional time involved (if any) can be calculated for incorporation inthe cost.

RTA Project Estimating Estimating Software 10 - 1 Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

• • • •••

C H A P T E R 1 0CHAPTER 0ESTIMATING SOFTWARE

10.1 Summary

This chapter provides general information only on some proprietorysoftware availble as an aid to estimating, including:

• MS Excel and similar spreadsheets• Build Soft• CATS• Candy• Piece 7 (Wintendor)• Benchmark• Estimator V6• Expert Estimator

Brief descriptions and comments are given. Any intended applicationsof the specialist estimating software (that is, excluding spreadsheets)should be referred to PMO for advice.

10.2 Estimating Software

Common proprietory estimating software used by the AustralianConstruction Industry includes the following;

• MS Excel and similar spreadsheets• Build Soft• CATS• Candy• Piece 7 (Wintendor)• Estimator V6

• • • •••


• Expert Estimator

10.2.1 Microsoft Excel and Similar SpreadsheetsSpreadsheets are used by some smaller contractors together in someinstances with custom macros. However, this approach to estimating isnot generally preferred by most professional estimators due to the easeof making errors and the lack of custom built features which assist inthe assembly of large estimates.

10.2.2 Buildsoft Buildsoft is used by commercial building companies and is good fortake offs and subcontract work but has not found widespreadapplication in civil engineering projects.

10.2.3 CATS CATS is an in-house estimating system developed by the LeightonGroup of companies and is not commercially available, although thereare a number of clones available in the market, the most popular ofwhich is Expert Estimator.

The following five packages all provide the level of detail required forlarge civil estimates as well as the ability to develop nested groupresources (sometimes called assemblies or clusters). This is anextremely useful feature in civil engineering estimating.


• • • •••

10.2.4 CandyCandy was developed by the South African company Murray &Roberts over 10 years ago and is available in the market place inAustralia. It is used by a number of large civil engineering companies.

Candy has all the features required to build up a complex estimate. Itis, however, quite complex to use (due to the large number of featuresin the package) and requires a good deal of training to be usedefficiently.

10.2.5 Price 7 (Wintender)Price 7 is used by at least one of the major Australian civil engineeringcompanies. It is a South African product and has recently beenupgraded from the DOS version to a MS-Windows version calledWintender.

The package is simple to use and little training is required.

Suppliers are:

HKC SystemsTel +27 12 665 000e-mail [email protected]

10.2.6 Benchmark Roadworks Strategic EstimatorBenchmark Roadworks Strategic Estimator is a powerful tool for theStrategic estimator. This feature of the benchmark software, written inco-operation with RTA, enables the estimation of projectsprogressively from Strategic, to Concept and detailed all in the onepackage. Strategic and Concept estimates, including quantities andrates, are generated automatically when the user answers just a few

mailto:[email protected]

• • • •••


questions. When the estimate needs to be further refined the usersimply answers more questions to refine the estimate further.

Benchmark is Windows based and is multi-user. It has all the featuresrequired for advanced estimating and is easy to learn and use. Importand export facilities to and from other packages, especiallyprogramming packages like Microsoft Project, further increase theutility of the program. The package is fully supported and iscontinually being developed.

Further information is available from:

Benchmark Estimating SoftwarePO Box 992, Nowra, NSW 2541

Tel 02 4423 0566 Fax 02 4423 3228Email: [email protected]

10.2.7 Estimator V6Estimator V6 is the latest in this well known estimating programoriginally developed for contractor John Holland.

Version 6 is now a MS-Windows program, although it does not lookvery different from its DOS predecessors. Export and Import fromother application is possible and the package has the ability to buildcomplex nested group resources.

Estimator Version 6 is easily learned and is supplied by:

Constructive Computing Services International346 St Georges RoadThornbyVictoria

Tel 03 9808 3233

mailto:[email protected]


• • • •••

10.2.8 Expert EstimatorExpert Estimator is a clone of the CATS software used by LeightonContractors. In mid 2000, Version 3 was released which for the firsttime had full MS-Windows features.

Expert Estimator is a very large program with many options and theability to handle the largest projects. Much more has been done onversion 3 since its release and it is now being used extensively in theindustry.

Despite the number of options and reports which can be obtained fromthe package it is fairly simple to use. A powerful computer is requiredto make the most of the package.

Expert Estimator is supplied by:

Protect Cost EngineeringPO Box 122Broken RidgeQLD 4017

Tel 07 3261 6088url www.costengineer.com.au

10.3 Risk Quantification Software

Software commonly used in the analysis and quantification of risk (in aMonte Carlo analysis) includes:

• Crystal Ball• @Risk• Analytica

Crystal Ball and @Risk both use Microsoft Excel spreadsheets forinput and for output of results. Analytica uses a diagrammatic systemfor input and output. Advantages and disadvantages of each of theseproducts in shown in Table 10.1.

http://www.costengineer.com.au

• • • •••


.

Product Advantages Disadvantages

Crystal Ball Easy to learn & understand

Easy to Use

Probability distributions shown on input sheet

Excellent output for forecasts & assumptions

Forecast probabilities can be plotted in Excel

Logic of analysis is not shown on spreadsheet

Model has to be re-run to analyse changes

Formatting page breaks can be tedious

Input spreadsheet has to be set up to name assumptions automatically

Assumptions have to be listed as fixed values

Outputs from changes to input have to be reformatted

@Risk Reasonably easy to learn & understand

Reasonably easy to use

Assumptions shown in spreadsheet cells as functions

Changes to assumptions can be made easily

Probability distributions shown in add-on to @Risk

Good tabular output for forecasts & assumptions

Output charts can be transferred to & formatted in Excel

Logic of analysis is not shown on spreadsheet

Input spreadsheet has to be set up to name assumptions automatically

Model has to be re-run to analyse changes

Formatting output tables can be tedious

Outputs from changes to input have to be reformatted


• • • •••

Table 10.1 Risk Quantification Software

Analytica Reasonably easy to learn & understand

Reasonably easy to use

Uses diagrammatic input

Logic of analysis can be clearly shown

Assumptions shown in diagram nodes as functions

Changes to assumptions can be made easily

Output distributions can be shown by clicking diagram

No need to re-run model to analyse changes

Outputs continuously calculated as model is built

Good chart outputs for forecasts & assumptions

Charts can be transferred to & formatted in Excel

Diagrams can become very complex and confusing

No reasonable output listing of assumptions is available

Overall output is not comprehensive for presentation purposes

• • • •••

