Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 270

PROJECT ESTIMATING

Prepared by Project Management Office Document No. RTA-CSD-PMS-PR-M-02 Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales, 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

(This page intentionally left blank)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 1.1 1.2 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5

INTRODUCTION Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Glossary of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 OVERVIEW OF RTA REQUIREMENTS Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RTA Estimating Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Responsibilities and Approvals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relevant Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Project Stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Presentation of Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ESTIMATING APPROACH Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Types of Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methods of Estimating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definition of Project Scope and Constraints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Constructability and Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Asset Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Occupational Health, Safety & Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Environmental Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Traffic Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Risk & Contingency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Value Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Use of Historical Cost Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quality Assurance in Estimating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Guidelines for Preparing Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ESTIMATE COMPONENTS Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Project Development Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Detailed Investigation and Design Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Property Acquisition Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Infrastructure Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Utilities Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Handover Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STRATEGIC ESTIMATE Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preliminary Project Appreciation Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimate Establishment Stage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.1 2.2 2.5 2.8 2.9 2.9

3.1 3.1 3.4 3.8 3.12 3.13 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.15 3.19 3.20 3.22 3.24

4.1 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.5

5.1 5.1 5.1 5.3 5.5

5.6 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 7 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 8

Concurrence, Approval and Acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 CONCEPT ESTIMATE Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preliminary Project Appreciation Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimate Establishment Stage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concurrence, Approval and Acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DETAILED ESTIMATE Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preliminary Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Project Appreciation Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimate Establishment Stage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concurrence, Approval and Acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.1 6.1 6.1 6.3 6.6 6.6

7.1 7.1 7.1 7.4 7.5 7.10 7.11

PROJECT COMPLETION FEEDBACK 8.1 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 CONTRACT VARIATIONS 9.1 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 9.2 Contract Variations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 ESTIMATING SOFTWARE Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 Estimating Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 Risk Quantification Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5

10 10.1 10.2 10.3

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 Appendix 5.2 Appendix 5.3 Appendix 5.4 Appendix 5.5

Sample Cost Estimate Scope Sample Work Breakdown Structure Sample Strategic Estimate Report Verification Checklist Estimate Approval and Acceptance Form

Appendix 6.1 Appendix 6.2 Appendix 6.3 Appendix 6.4 Appendix 6.5

Sample Cost Estimate Scope Sample Work Breakdown Structure Sample Concept Estimate Report Verification Checklist Estimate Approval and Acceptance Form

Appendix 7.1 Appendix 7.2 Appendix 7.3 Appendix 7.4 Appendix 7.5 Appendix 7.6 Appendix 7.7 Appendix 7.8

Sample Cost Estimate Scope Sample Verbal Quotation Record Sample Site Visit Checklist Sample Work Breakdown Structure Sample Estimate Review Sheet Sample Detailed Estimate Report Verification Checklist Estimate Approval and Acceptance Form

Appendix 8.1

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

(This page intentionally left blank)

C
CHAPTER0

H A P T E R

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Applicability

This manual has been produced for the purpose of both preparation and review of estimates for RTA projects. It is applicable to a wide range of RTA projects, delivery systems and complexity of estimates, from small maintenance projects undertaken by RTAs own workforce to major infrastructure projects delivered by private funding and construction. The background and experience of personnel preparing or reviewing estimates for RTA is widely varied. The manual is intended to be a concise, hands-on, user friendly document which will provide the person responsible for preparation of the estimate with sufficient guidance to satisfactorily produce a reliable estimate. For the experienced estimator, the manual provides data and guidance on RTA specific estimating terminology, requirements and estimate presentation formats. While the manual is complimentary to other RTA publications and documents, it is intended to essentially stand alone, without the need to continually locate and refer to other documents. For this reason, relevant important information from other RTA documents has been reproduced in this manual. The manual contains requirements, and utilises terminology and features, specific to RTA. It is not intended for use on other than RTA projects.

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Introduction

1-1

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. The final out-turn dollar expenditure on a project. The sum of expenditure to date and the forecast expenditure, in outturn dollars, to complete the project. An estimate in current dollars prepared during the concept development phase and finalised following the determination of the Environmental Impact Assessment and concept approval. Non-variation provision which covers circumstances that could not be forseen at the time of preparation of the estimate. 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. An estimate which is reported as a single result. 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. 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. 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. 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. A very approximate, low order estimating method based on all in or global rates, such as $/km of freeway. Costs not included in direct costs (such as supervision, site costs, insurances, design) but exclusive of contingency and profit. A stand alone component of a project. An allowance which includes the construction contractors corporate overheads and profit.

Actual Cost Anticipated Final Cost Concept Estimate

Contingency Current Dollars

Definitive Estimate Detailed Estimate

Direct Costs

Estimate

First Principles Estimating

Global Estimating Indirect Costs Job Margin

1-2


Chapter 1 Issued December 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

Outturn Dollars Project Project Estimate Range Estimate Risk

Dollars of the period in which the work was or will be performed. A series of inter-related activities with defined start and end dates designed to achieve a unique and common objective. The total estimated cost in current or outturn dollars of all aspects of a project. An estimate which is reported as a range of values within which the estimate can be considered to lie. 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. An estimate in current dollars prepared for project feasibility studies of various options prior to the development of a concept. The lowest cost to reliably accomplish a function in accordance with required levels of quality and performance. 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. Additional approved work or work not required. Also, extras or deductions resulting from errors or omissions in the detailed drawings and/or specifications.

Strategic Estimate Value Value Management

Variation

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Introduction

1-3

(This page intentionally left blank)

1-4


Chapter 1 Issued December 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

C
CHAPTER0

H A P T E R

OVERVIEW OF RTA REQUIREMENTS

2.1 Summary
RTAs current estimating policy is focused on the preparation of unlikely to be exceeded estimates. This means that the Actual Cost of a project has a 90% probability of not being greater than the estimate prepared at any project stage. An alternative way of expressing this, is that estimates are to have a 90% confidence factor of not being exceeded. At the same time, estimates must not be excessively conservative. Estimates must make reasonable allowances for risks and contingencies, and items which are likely to be included in the final project scope through processes such as environmental determinants and 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 RTAs 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 development project estimates, is contained in Appendix 2.1. For smaller maintenance, traffic or road safety projects a modified work breakdown structure may be adopted. At a level below this, the Project Manager
RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001 Overview of RTA Requirements

2-1

will decide whether the estimate should be formulated geographically or functionally, on a project by project basis. Proprietary software normally 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 means dollar values in the year of the estimate. A date must therefore be included in all estimates.

2.2 RTA Estimating Policy


The definition of an estimate in Chapter 1 is a combination of the definition from RTAs Project Management Guidelines and that contained in F.J.Slatterys Fundamentals of Estimating for Engineering Construction. The contribution from Slattery is the stated recognition of constraints on the estimating process at various project stages and in particular the need to ensure that the targeted level of estimate accuracy is compatible with the available information. Although such a qualification ought to be self-evident, the estimating fundamental reflected, namely that of matching estimating effort and particularly expectation of outcome with available information, is not always observed. This should be borne in mind by all estimators when preparing 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 ranges reflect the fact that as a project is developed the scope and risks will become increasingly better defined. This is shown diagrammatically in Figure 2.1.

2-2


Chapter 2 Issued December 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

Required estimate range


+30% +20% +10%

Actual Cost
-10% -20% -30%

Strategic

Concept

Figure 2.1 Traditional Approach to Estimating However, the impact of this philosophy is that in the case of 50% of estimates, the Actual Cost is higher than the estimate; and in the case of 50% of estimates, the Actual Cost is lower than the estimate. This philosophy is no longer appropriate for budgeting reasons. Current RTA policy, in response to changes in Client requirements, is that estimates are to be produced on an unlikely to be exceeded basis, and therefore there must be a high degree of confidence that the Actual Cost will be less than or equal to the estimated cost. This policy is equivalent to a lower range of estimate variation from Actual Cost of zero. This is shown diagrammatically in Figure 2.2.

Detailed

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Overview of RTA Requirements

2-3

+30%

Required estimate range (Upper Limit - 90% probability of not being exceeded)
+20% +10%

Actual Cost
-10% -20% -30%

Strategic

Concept

Figure 2.2 Required RTA Approach Estimating in such an environment requires a conservative but realistic view of the project scope together with the risks and contingencies associated with the project, particularly in the early project stages where less detailed project information is available. The estimator may, in producing a not to be exceeded estimate, be tempted to take an inappropriately conservative view in the face of uncertainties. The challenge for the estimator is to arrive at a realistic (that is, not overly conservative) view of the project scope and risks and assign appropriate contingencies, in order to produce a meaningful estimate within the not to be exceeded but not to be excessive band of acceptability. All estimates must include a detailed consideration of RTAs project costs, including project management. These costs must be estimated essentially on a first principles basis, taking into account the expected RTA personnel required for the project and appropriate charge out rates, inclusive of personnel direct costs and regional and corporate overheads.

2-4


Chapter 2 Issued December 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

Detailed

Estimates are relevant only to a particular project scope, or range of scopes, which must be clearly set out as part of the estimate. Estimates must make reasonable allowances for risks and contingencies. Estimates should also make provision for items that are considered likely to be ultimately required, having regard to such inputs as environmental determinants and community input on the final project scope. Such items should be included as specific allowances and not through an increase in contingency. Peer review of project estimates is mandatory and should be undertaken 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 Project Management Office (PMO) for review and concurrence.

2.3 Responsibilities and Approvals

This section contains general responsibilities and approvals related to estimating. More detailed descriptions, where appropriate, are contained within the relevant sections of this manual. RTAs policy is to ensure that there are clear lines of responsibility and accountability to ensure that the best possible outcome is achieved. To assist in this process, this section assigns those responsibilities in regard to the preparation, review, concurrence, approval and acceptance of project estimates.

2.3.1 Estimate Preparation


The Project Manager is responsible for: establishing the Scope of Work in consultation with the Clients Representative;
2-5

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Overview of RTA Requirements

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 Concurrence


To support RTAs commitment to achieve accurate project estimates, PMO has been assigned the role of review and concurrence of some project estimates. Accordingly: For all estimates of cost greater than $20 million, all Federally funded project estimates of cost greater than $10 million, and for all high risk complex 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.

2-6


Chapter 2 Issued December 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

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 Approvals
For estimates of cost less than $5 million, the Section Manager is responsible for approval. For estimates of cost greater than $5 million and less than $50 million, the Branch Manager or the Regional Manager is responsible for approval. For estimates of cost greater than $50 million, the Director, Client Services is responsible for approval. The approving officer is also responsible for recommending and supporting the Project budget.

2.3.4 Estimate Acceptance


The 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 approval of the project budget.

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Overview of RTA Requirements

2-7

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 Cost Control 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 (October 1993, currently under review) NSW Government Total Asset Management Guidelines Economic Appraisal, Life-Cycle Costing, Value Management, Risk Management, Post-Implementation Review (December 1999)

2-8


Chapter 2 Issued December 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

2.5 Project Stages


The stages in an RTA project lifecycle at which an estimate is required are listed below. These stages are typical for medium to large development projects. It is expected that there would be lesser stages for smaller development, maintenance, traffic and road safety projects.

Estimate Stage Strategic Revised Strategic Preliminary Initial Concept Concept Revised Concept Final Concept Detailed

When Prepared As part of a route or area strategy and reported in the Route or Area Strategy Report. On completion of desktop study work at commencement of the Option Investigation Phase and reported in the Project Development Proposal. At the end of the Option Investigation Phase and included in the Preferred Option Report. After the development of an engineering concept on the preferred option. It is reported in the Initial Concept Design Report. Prior to finalisation of the EIS or REF and reported in the Concept Design Report. During finalisation of the Representations Report and submitted together with this report. After receipt of the Conditions of Approval and any design amendments. The estimate is reported in the Project Implementation Proposal. On completion of the detailed design and reported separately.

Completely new estimates, rather than review and modification of previous estimates, are to be prepared at least at Strategic, Initial Concept and Detailed stages to ensure that any changes and modifications to previous estimates are fully incorporated and that appropriate rigour is applied to the estimating process.

2.6 Presentation of Estimates


A standard Summary structure for development project estimates is shown in Appendix 2.1. (This is identical to the structure contained in Table 3.1 of the Project Management Guidelines Estimating, Scope and Cost Control for Development Projects.) This Summary sheet is to be used for all development project estimates. An electronic version of

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Overview of RTA Requirements

2-9

this summary sheet can be accessed through PM21 (Project Management System) on the PMO web site. In preparation of the Summary, consideration must be given to the accuracy of the presented estimated cost. The Project Manager should select an appropriate level of rounding commensurate with the stage of the project and the accuracy of the estimate. For example, strategic estimates within the range $0 to $50 million could be rounded to the nearest $1 million to $2 million, and strategic estimates over $50 million rounded to the nearest $5 million to $10 million. Rounding should only be done once at the end of the estimate and not progressively within the estimate. At the level below that of the Summary, the estimator will develop a more detailed summary, the make-up and appearance of which will depend on the type of estimate and the estimating methodology adopted. Further guidance on appropriate styles is contained in Chapters 5, 6 and 7 of this manual. On major linear type projects, such as roads and tunnels, the estimator will be faced with the choice of presentation of the estimate either geographically or functionally. As an example, a road project may be presented either as costs for specific sections between selected chainages or as total costs for major elements such as earthworks, pavements and the like. Each type of presentation has advantages. A geographic presentation is required for comparison of subroutes within an overall route. Such a presentation has disadvantages, however, in value engineering exercises where a global change in an item over the whole project, such as pavement type, requires reworking in each geographic section rather than in one item for the whole project, as would be the case in the functional type presentation. The Project Manager will decide which style is likely to provide the most flexibility for the particular project.

2 - 10


Chapter 2 Issued December 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

A major advantage of the majority of proprietary estimating software is the facility to present estimates in two or more alternative ways. While obligatory use of proprietary software is not yet RTA policy, those undertaking repetitive estimates of major projects may find the benefits of such software worthwhile. Further details of proprietary software are contained in Chapter 10. Within RTA usage, the word estimate without out-turn means dollar values in the year of the estimate. All estimates must therefore include a date, however a month and year is sufficient.

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Overview of RTA Requirements

2 - 11

(This page intentionally left blank)

2 - 12


Chapter 2 Issued December 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

A
CHAPTER 0

P P E N D I X

2.1

STANDARD SUMMARY STRUCTURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ESTIMATES

(This page intentionally left blank)

Standard Summary Structure for Development Project Estimates


Table 3.1
Project: Prepared by:

Project No: Item Estimate (excluding

Date: Contingency Estimate

Estimate Stage: % of Total Estimate Comments/Assumptions

% 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 $ $ $ $ $ $ % % % % % % $ $ $ $ % % % % $ $ $ $ % % % % $ $ $ $ $ % % % % % $ $ $ $ % % % % $ $ $ $ % % % %

Amount

(including contingency)

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ %

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ %

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ %

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ %

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ %

$ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ % %

Total Amount Project Management Client Representation ______________ ______________

% of Total Estimate _____________ _____________

Reality checks: 1. Project Cost / km 2. Project Cost / lane-km 3. Earthworks Cost / m 4. Pavement Cost / m
2 2 3

___________________ ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ ___________________

5. Structure Cost / m deck area

Document No: RTA-CSD-PMS-PR-P-95-A1

Issue 1.1

Page 1of 1

(This page intentionally left blank)

C
CHAPTER0

H A P T E R

ESTIMATING APPROACH

3.1 Summary
RTAs estimating approach is to require estimates be prepared at least at 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 Estimates


The types of estimates undertaken by RTA for development projects are listed in Chapter 2. The main types, and the purposes for which these estimates are used, are as follows.

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Estimating Approach

3-1

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 Table 3.1.
Estimate Type Strategic Concept Applicability Project feasibility studies of various options prior to the development of a concept. Prepared during the concept stage and finalised following the determination of the Environmental Impact Assessment and concept approval. Prepared prior to commencement of construction and based on final designs, detailed quantities and other identified costs, including allowances for contingencies and variations.

Detailed

Table 3.1 RTA Characteristics of Estimates It is informative to compare RTAs estimate types with those which may be regarded as typical of the estimating industry. Estimate types proposed by Slattery and by Antill are contained in Tables 3.2 and 3.3 respectively.

3-2


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

Estimate Type Order of Magnitude Preliminary

Applicability When the project is first mooted, to establish its broad viability or a first budget for fiscal planning When some information on the project has been developed, to determine more accurately the magnitude of the financial commitment or to evaluate alternatives 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 Prepared by a Contractor as part of the process of preparing a tender for the construction of a project

Order of Accuracy +/-30% +/-20%

Definitive

+/-10%

Detailed

+/-5%

Table 3.2 Slatterys Classification of Estimates

Estimate Type Approximate or rough

Applicability Pre-design, to assess the magnitude of a project prior to its design, produced with a minimum of preparation (an intelligent guess) Assessing the relative costs of alternative designs

Required Information Basic project information, a cost rate for some readily measurable quantity, such as rate per square metre of bridge deck area General arrangement and major quantities More details and a reasonable quantity schedules

Order of Accuracy +/-20% to 25%

Preliminary

+/-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%

Table 3.3 Antills Classification of Estimates

Slatterys and Antills estimate characteristics are considered representative of normal industry practice; it is therefore seen (by comparison of these tables) that the RTAs 90% probability of Actual Cost not exceeding estimated cost requirement is more rigorous than typical in the estimating industry.
RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001 Estimating Approach

3-3

It may further be seen that the upper level accuracies required of RTAs strategic, concept and detailed estimates are met or exceeded by accuracies achieved by the approximate (or order of magnitude), preliminary and detailed (or definitive) estimate. It may be concluded that similar methods should be used to prepare each of these corresponding estimate types. RTAs recent experience has found this to be generally true of preliminary / 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 deliver RTAs requirements of a strategic estimate with sufficient certainty. This has been found to be the case particularly for road project estimates based simply on $ per km.

3.3 Methods of Estimating


All estimates utilise the basic concept of division of a project into sufficiently small elements so as to allow a single rate or unit cost to be applied to each element, extending the quantities and rates to determine a cost for each element, summing the resulting elemental costs and finally applying additional costs to give a complete estimate. The basic difference in the estimate types is the degree to which a project is divided into elements and the method used to apply rates and the additional costs. The more rigorous the process used, the greater will 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 both the purpose for which the estimate is required (and therefore the required accuracy of the estimate) and the level of detail of available data. There is little point, for example, in commitment of the resources required to prepare a detailed first principles estimate on the basis of strategic information.

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

3-4

Methods commonly used in preparation of estimates are outlined below:

3.3.1 Global Estimates


The term Global Estimating or Order of Magnitude Estimating is used to describe a coarse or low order method of estimating involving the use of all in or global composite rates. The project could be considered as consisting of one estimating element only and the estimate prepared on this basis. Examples are road cost per km and bridge costs per square metre of deck area. This method has historically been used for strategic estimates, and may still be satisfactory for some projects. However, such an approach has been found not to reliably deliver the required certainty of outcome for road projects, and must be used with caution. If a Global Estimate is to be prepared (due to shortage of time or other constraints) it is essential that the composition of an historic global rate be understood prior to adoption and application of that rate to a new project. Often, global rates are based on actual completed costs and do not contain a contingency allowance, although occasionally an allowance for foreseeable risks may have been contained in the global rate. In any event, the allowances, if any, for these items contained in an historic global rate must be reviewed and adjusted, if necessary, for the new projects particular circumstances.

3.3.2 Unit Rates Estimates


The Unit Rate approach makes use of historical rates and calculated quantities to derive elemental costs. The level of project detail available at the time of estimate preparation, and the purpose for which the estimate is required, will determine the number of items into which the project is divided.
RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001 Estimating Approach

3-5

Even when limited information is available, it is likely that a better result will be attained by adoption of a coarse unit rates approach rather than a global method. With a sufficient level of information, judicious selection of appropriate historical rates and provided that sufficient care is taken to ensure that the complete scope of the project is incorporated in the estimate, the unit rate approach is capable of production of estimates suitable for RTAs requirements for detailed estimates, that is, within 10% of Actual Cost. However, care must be exercised to ensure that appropriate rates are selected and the makeup of those rates is understood.

3.3.3 First Principles Estimates


The basis of first principles estimating, sometimes referred to as basic costs estimating, is replacement of the historical cost data with rates calculated specifically for the particular project. To begin a First Principles estimate, a new project is divided into the finest feasible elements. For example, concrete in a bridge deck is typically further subdivided into formwork, concrete supply, placement, finishing and curing. The plant, materials and labour requirements for each of these basic steps in construction of each element are determined, taking account of such factors as material wastage, plant cycle times and labour inefficiencies. Direct cost rates (exclusive of risk, contingency, indirect costs and margin) are calculated to develop a direct cost rate for each element, which, when applied to the calculated elemental quantities, gives a forecast direct cost. Indirect costs, or preliminaries, are calculated by consideration of time based costs and one-off costs (those which are independent of the

3-6


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

duration of the project). Time based costs include site staff and their vehicles, site running costs, time related insurances and the like, whereas indirect costs include such items as mobilisation, site establishment, tender costs (for a contractor), lump sum insurances and similar items. The direct costs and indirect costs are then added, an allowance for cost escalation (if applicable) over the anticipated duration of the project applied, and margin and contingency added to give the total estimated cost. If the purpose of the estimate is to complete a schedule of rates or prices for a tender, indirect costs, margins and the like would then be spread over the tender items. First principles estimating is the method normally adopted by Contractors for preparation of detailed estimates for contract tenders. It is the most time consuming and hence costly to prepare, but has the potential to deliver the greatest certainty of outcome. Used inappropriately, however, first principles estimating can deliver results that are outside even the required range of strategic estimates.

3.3.4 Hybrid Unit Rate / First Principles Estimate


Unit rates used by RTA in estimates are traditionally obtained from previous tenders for similar work. These are commonly selling rates, which include indirect costs and all contractors contingencies, margins and allowances. The sum of the elemental costs derived by the quantities and rates is the estimated cost. Since each project has unique constraints and requirements, such an approach contains inherent inaccuracies in that factors and allowances developed for a previous project (which may not be applicable or appropriate to the project being estimated) will be applied with the unit rate. An alternative approach, which uses some features of the unit rate method and some of first principles estimating, can result in increased estimate accuracy without requiring the resource investment required of a full first principles estimate.
RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001 Estimating Approach

3-7

Such a method relies on the availability of direct cost unit rates - that is rates which are equivalent to those derived from the first principles approach before the application of any other costs. The process involved is to divide the project into the smallest feasible geographic or work breakdown structure elements, but without further subdivision into the basic components of plant, materials and labour. Application of direct cost rates (obtained by averaging tendered rates for similar projects in the recent past) to the elemental quantities will result in the direct cost as in the first principles method. The remainder of 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 be required. An example could be a road project in undulating or hilly terrain with substantial cut to fill earthworks combined with a fill deficit, requiring substantial borrow and haulage. In such a case, consideration of likely mass hauls, haul distances and plant cycle times may be required to develop custom unit rates for the project. Historical data would then be used for the remaining items of the estimate Such an estimate caters more accurately to the project conditions and constraints than the standard unit rates method, although not as well as a first principles estimate, and can therefore be expected to have an accuracy between those achieved by these methods.

3.4 Definition of Project Scope and Constraints


3.4.1 Project Scope
The starting point for any estimate is definition of the project scope. Scope definition requires an understanding of the project objectives and the means by which those objectives will be delivered. In the majority of RTA projects, objectives will be delivered through construction of physical infrastructure and works. However, there are

3-8


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

some projects (for example in the Information Technology and Management areas) where delivery of a project will not involve physical works. Although in such projects there may be no physical end product, understanding of the project objectives and documentation of the project scope is equally important if a reliable project estimate is to be produced. Scope definition is normally achieved through pictorial representations and drawings, together with lists of works to be undertaken. The amount of information available, and hence the degree of scope definition 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 satisfactory estimate. Inadequate or incorrect scope definition is not only the most common cause of inaccuracy in RTA estimates, but also the cause of the greatest degree of inaccuracy in estimates, particularly in the early project stages when the minimum amount of information is available.

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

Estimators must resist the temptation to base estimates on poorly defined scope, which then become merely a guess, and not necessarily an informed one. It is essential that, even at strategic stage, the project scope is known and understood in sufficient detail as to allow the production of a meaningful estimate. Where information is limited, scope definition will require local knowledge of the project site and conditions and experience in and comparison with similar projects. The more common problems encountered in project scope definition are as follows.

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Estimating Approach

3-9

Complete Omission (or Erroneous Inclusion) of Items


Examples of items which may be omitted from or erroneously included in a projects scope are intersections or interchanges, culverts or drainage facilities, stock underpasses, drainage in cuttings, noise barriers, batter stabilisation work and subgrade improvement or strengthening. Such omissions should be avoided by checking with a schedule containing all possible items. Where estimates are based on other than global methods, the estimator must use his experience of similar projects to determine the likelihood of inclusion of such features if insufficient documented detail is available. Such inclusions should be listed as assumptions and adjusted or removed when more details become known.

Incorrect Determination of the Quantity of an Item


The accuracy of determination of quantities depends on the detail of available information. However, even at the simplest level, in the often time constrained environment of estimate preparation gross errors can and have occurred. Examples are inclusion of only half the pavement quantity in dual carriageway roads or half the concrete quantity in twin deck bridges. The estimator should minimise the risk of quantity error by logically and methodically undertaking quantity calculations, and by the adoption of available quality systems.

Inclusion of Inappropriate Items.


Examples of inclusion of inappropriate items are the adoption of low quality noise barriers in an urban environment and selection of an inappropriate pavement type or bridge type for a particular application.

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

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

3 - 10

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

3.4.2 Project Constraints


On a project, constraints may exist for a variety of reasons. Constraints may be physical, environmental, aesthetic or regulatory, and may either introduce additional items into a project or may affect the unit rates of existing items. Examples of constraints that could potentially be omitted from the project scope are the need for air or water treatment prior to discharge; the requirement for provision of access to properties either during construction or in the final project and limitations on working hours and generated noise. A constraint that commonly causes difficulties in estimates is that of existing services and utilities, particularly those located underground, and which may require adjustment, relocation or replacement. It is often difficult to ascertain the likely extent of effects of underground (and, in some cases, above ground) services, particularly in the early project stages. An appropriate amount has to be included in the estimate as a Contingency Allowance. The Project Manager should use a checklist containing all possible constraints to avoid omissions.

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Estimating Approach

3 - 11

3.5 Constructability and Program


3.5.1 Constructability
The RTA Project Management Guide defines constructability as the optimum use of construction knowledge and experience in planning, design, procurement and field operations to achieve overall project objectives. This broad definition may be narrowed when applied to estimating, the objective of which is to forecast the project cost within the required accuracy for the type of estimate being prepared. Constructability in relation to estimating can be regarded as the extent to which planning, design, procurement and field operational features affect the construction cost of a project. An example is the need for sheet piling around excavation in poor ground. Depending on the time of preparation of the estimate within the life of the project, some of these factors may be known and others required to be assumed. In its most extreme form, lack of appreciation of constructability issues may result in preparation of an estimate for a project which cannot physically be built.

3.5.2 Program
An appreciation of the likely project construction program is necessary in preparation of all but the most rudimentary of estimates. Potential direct cost effects of the construction program may include reductions in productivity during wet seasons, potential resources shortages at certain times of the year such as Christmas periods and the cost of maintenance of temporary facilities, such as road diversions or haul roads, during the construction period. The longer the construction program, the greater will be the effect on project cost. The indirect costs of a project will also be affected by the duration required for project delivery. A reduction in project duration is likely to be achieved at the expense of increased resources, increased

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

3 - 12

mobilisation and establishment costs and increased time related costs per period, but with a reduction in the overall time related costs. The converse is true of an increased construction time. The optimum project time, in terms of minimisation of cost, is not necessarily obvious. For estimates which are required in outturn dollars, an appreciation of the likely construction program is necessary to apply escalation to current dollar costs in order to arrive at the outturn estimate.

3.6 Asset Management


RTAs Development Policy on Project Handover requires that Infrastructure Maintenance Branch be consulted during the concept development and detailed design phases of a project, to ensure that cost effective and appropriate asset management and maintenance functions can occur over the life of the project, and that the cost of such provisions are included in the estimated project cost. In relation to estimates, asset management may be regarded as the cost of operation, if applicable, maintenance and rehabilitation of a project. Decisions taken during development of a project will influence not only the capital cost but also the operation, maintenance and rehabilitation costs. Minimisation of capital cost is not necessarily, and is probably not, compatible with optimisation of whole of life costs. Appreciation of whole of life project costs therefore requires knowledge of all relevant operation and maintenance costs. Even where optimisation of whole of life costs is not a project objective, where reduced capital costs may take precedence over minimum whole of life cost, an appreciation of whole of life costs is mandatory in project development.

3.7 Occupational Health, Safety & Rehabilitation


Occupational Health, Safety and Rehabilitation (OHS&R) issues may affect both direct and indirect cost.
RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001 Estimating Approach

3 - 13

The most obvious area of OHS&R effects on direct costs is the requirement to provide a safe work area adjacent to existing roads. In addition to the cost of provision of barriers and attendants, such a requirement may affect the traffic staging during construction of a project, thereby also affecting the cost. In other areas, such as tunnelling, evolution of workplace environment requirements needs to be considered when reviewing older historical data for applicability in a new project estimate. In addition to the above effects on direct costs, RTAs project OHS&R responsibilities and obligations must be considered when evaluating project management and supervision requirements and costs.

3.8 Environmental Issues


Most RTA activities require environmental impact assessment. While preparation of the assessment will involve a cost that should be included in the estimate, it is likely that of more significance to the estimator will be the cost of compliance with the findings of the assessment or associated conditions of approval of the project by the Environmental Authorities. Of particular importance are the changes to a project that may result from either the determination process itself or from community consultation, either during the determination process or ongoing through project delivery. The environmental conditions of approval, and any resulting changes to the project, are usually not known until preparation of the final concept estimate. All preceding estimates must therefore be prepared in the absence of such detailed information, relying on requirements for similar projects. It would be appropriate to include a contingency allowance for complying with such conditions. An environmental aspect which has become quite significant in terms of project cost in recent years is that of flora and fauna compensatory habitats, mitigation strategies and associated works, where RTA is required to provide alternative habitats for species of flora and fauna when existing habitats are affected by projects.

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

3 - 14

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

3.9 Traffic Issues


Depending on the type and location of the project, traffic issues which need to be considered during preparation of a project estimate may include 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 for other items, or may be included as a separate allowance, depending on the type of estimate and the amount of information available. It is important that the estimator understands the makeup of adopted unit rates and ensures that appropriate provision is made for the costs of traffic management, if such costs are spread over rates and not shown as a separate estimate item. The significance of traffic issues on estimated cost is project specific, and, therefore, historical unit rates from projects which required significant traffic measures may not be directly applicable to other projects without adjustment of this component of the rate.

3.10 Risk & Contingency


Risk is defined as the chance of something happening that will have an impact upon objectives. It is measured in terms of consequences and likelihood (AS 4360).

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Estimating Approach

3 - 15

Contingency is generally defined as an unforeseen event (or risk). For estimating purposes, however, RTA refers to contingency as the sum of money allocated for dealing with unforeseen events, including those such as quantities more than anticipated

3.10.1 Risk
The RTA has well established methods for identifying and assessing risks (Risk Management), which are beyond the scope of this manual. For the purposes of estimating, risks can be classified as "Known Risks" and "Unknown Risks" (a) Known Risks: A known risk is that which has been identified in the Risk Management exercise as an unplanned event that could occur in the project under consideration. The Risk Management exercise 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 - In this case, the cost of such measures to reduce the should be included as a separate item in impact of the risk 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.

3 - 16


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

The main purposes of showing the estimated costs for dealing with risks, separately, are: (i) the items can easily be changed into Provisional Items for tendering purposes; and (ii) actual costs of variations arising from the risk events can be traced 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 to deciding on adopting measures to eliminate the risk completely. (ii) Community complaint on construction noise levels (Medium likelihood & consequence) In this case, the Risk Management exercise may have led to deciding on adopting measures to reduce the impact such as constructing a temporary earth mound.

(iii) Pile toe levels lower than expected (Medium likelihood & consequence) In this case, the Risk Management exercise may have led to deciding on adopting the "Do Nothing" option. (b)Unknown Risks These are risks where existence and degree of impact on the project are both uncertain. Examples of such risks are Force-Majure events such as flooding, earthquake, cyclone, etc., political events such as

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Estimating Approach

3 - 17

funding cutback, labour unrest, etc., and human errors such as design errors, accidents caused by human factors, etc. The Risk Management exercise may not have determined the probability or the severity of such risks. Even if these have been determined, their reliability would be in question. For example, the probability of an earthquake occurring in Sydney could have been decided as, say, 1 in 10,000 prior to the earthquake in Newcastle in 1990. Immediately after that incident, it could have been decided as, say, 1 in 10. Now, some ten years after the incident, it could be decided as, say, 1 in 1,000. Similarly, the prediction of the severity of the incident would also be unreliable. The predictions would also depend on the bias of the decision makers - A person who has experienced a similar incident would tend to predict a higher probability than that predicted by others and a severity similar to the one he/she has experienced. As such, it would be difficult to arrive at reasonable contingency allowances. It should, however, be born in mind that the tendency to be riskaversive would lead to unrealistically high estimates caused by adding contingency allowances for all or most of the identified unknown risks. A common sense approach and consideration of how the previously completed projects have suffered from unknown risks would give rise to reasonable contingency amounts.

It should also be noted that the probability of the project being affected by all of the identified "unknown risks" would be next to nothing. If a large number of risks are identified, especially for a large complex project, a realistic contingency figure could be arrived at by carrying out a Monte Carlo simulation. This process, however, would require feeding in minimum, maximum and most probable costs of dealing with each risk and the type of distribution between minimum & maximum values for each risk. The outcome is a range within which the project estimate will lie. The process is, therefore, sometimes known as range estimating, and is

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

3 - 18

undertaken with software developed for the purpose. Essetnially, a definitive estimate is prepared, to which risk probabilities are applied and a range estimate developed. Software used for quantification of risks and the development of range 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 which these are used are contained in Chapter 10.

3.10.2 Contingency
The contingency allowance for the different items should be reviewed at each stage of the estimate and adjusted, if necessary, depending on the predicted probability and severity of the risk events at those stages. Further details and recommended levels of contingency for the various project stages are contained in Sections 5, 6 and 7. It must be noted that the contingency allowance is not for changes to the project scope, but only for unforeseen events which occur within the existing project scope. In the event that the project scope is changed, a new estimate must be prepared, with a new definition of project scope and a level of contingency applicable to the revised scope.

3.11 Value Engineering


The process of value engineering, or value management, is described in the following documents; AS/NZS 4183 Value Management; NSW Government Capital Works Investment Value Management Manual; and
RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001 Estimating Approach

3 - 19

Value Management Guide prepared for RTA by the product Evaluation Unit, 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 providing all the necessary functions at the lowest total cost consistent with required levels of quality and performance. It is clear from the above definition that, at the heart of value management is the provision of reliable estimates on which value management decisions can be based. It is equally important to adjust the estimate(s) to reflect the decisions taken during the Value Management process. While it is not the function of the estimator to make decisions regarding the relative merits of different project options, a properly considered and prepared estimate should highlight any areas of the project which, in comparison with other similar projects, do not appear to provide a value for money solution. Further, the concept of designing to a cost should be borne in mind during preparation of detailed designs.

3.12 Use of Historical Cost Data


RTA has over time, through receipt of tenders and preparation of RTAs own estimates for projects, amassed a wealth of data on rates, prices and costs. Often, such data is useful in the production of new estimates. Inappropriate use of such data can, however, have serious consequences in the accuracy and reliability of the estimate. There are four major factors which must be considered in deciding whether an historical rate or price is applicable to a new estimate.

3 - 20


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

Direct Costs
Direct costs are those involved in actually constructing a work item. These costs normally include materials, plant and labour up to the level of leading hand/ganger. It is not always apparent from the title of a rate precisely what direct work items are included. For example, concrete may include only supply and delivery of concrete, or also placing and finishing, or it may be a composite rate including formwork construction and stripping, reinforcement, supply, placing, finishing and curing of concrete. An allowance for wastage may or may not be included. Similarly, excavation may include excavation only, or haulage, stockpiling and spoil disposal, or all of these, environmental protection and an allowance for harder material excavation. In addition to the above, historical cost data may contain risk and contingency allowances specific to a particular project, or alternatively may make no allowance for these.

Indirect Costs
Indirect Costs include such items as site overheads and allowances for non-work related items. Typically, submitted tenders do not list such items as preliminaries, overheads and profit separately. Therefore, submitted tender rates normally include indirect costs. Such rates are sometimes referred to as sell(ing) prices or rates. In preparation of estimates, particularly more detailed estimates such as those prepared from first principles or the hybrid approach described earlier, the rates adopted often exclude indirect costs. The estimate is compiled on the basis of direct cost rates, with indirect costs added as a separate item in the estimate total. Prior to the adoption of historical cost data, it is necessary to understand the makeup of the data, and in particular whether the data includes or excludes indirect costs.
RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001 Estimating Approach

3 - 21

Overheads and profit


Both direct and indirect costs will be subject to the addition of amounts for the tenderers corporate overheads and profit (margin). However, it is not always possible to identify the amount of such allowances. In using historical data, the estimator must be aware of the market conditions prevailing at the time of the tender (competitive market conditions lead to a reduction in allowances for overheads and profit) and the possibility that the allowances for overheads and profit have not been equally spread over all the rates (Contractors sometimes adopt a practice known as front end loading for ensuring good cash flow at the beginning of a project).

Age of the Data


Costs for the same item of work vary with the passage of time (usually increasing), and the older the data the less reliable it will be. An appropriate allowance for inflation must be made whenever historical data is used.

3.12.1 Application of Historical Data


While historical cost data is a valuable asset, careless or inappropriate adoption of such data can, and has, led to significant errors in estimates. Prior to the use of such data it is essential to be confident that the makeup of the data is known and that the data is applicable to the estimate under preparation.

3.13 Quality Assurance in Estimating


Estimating is a task in which errors can easily occur, and is also one for which the delivered product does not necessarily provide evidence of

3 - 22


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

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

The Project Management System (PM21) Manual is applicable to estimate preparation for all infrastructure development projects managed by Project Management Services Group within RTAs Client Service Directorate.

The following procedures are applicable to the preparation of RTA estimates: Procedure for Preparation, Concurrence, Approval and Acceptance of an Estimate of Cost (RTA-CSD-PMS-PR-P-91); Procedure for Preparation of a Strategic Cost Estimate (RTA-CSDPMS-PR-P-92); Procedure for Preparation of a Concept Cost Estimate (RTA-CSDPMS-PR-P-93); and Procedure for Preparation of a Detailed Cost Estimate (RTA-CSDPMS-PR-P-94). Chapters 5, 6 and 7 of this manual provide further descriptions and guidance on the processes to be adopted for strategic, concept and detailed estimates respectively. In addition to the above procedures, flowcharts, checklists and proformas are included in this manual in the appropriate sections. Use is to be made of these as far as possible during preparation of an estimate, or, if necessary, these should be used as a basis for the development of project specific versions. Reality checks and peer review are also be considered to form part of the quality assurance process.

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Estimating Approach

3 - 23

Reality Checks and Peer Review


Reality checks must be carried out for every estimate by the estimator prior to presentation of the estimate for peer review. Reality checks, also called gross or sanity checks, are intended to ensure that the estimate is within expected and reasonable limits. Such checks are based on comparisons of estimated costs with historical data, and are generally undertaken on a global basis. The Standard Summary Structure for Development Project Estimates requires reality checks based on project cost per km of road and per lane-km of road, earthworks costs /m3, pavement costs /m2 and structure cost /m2 of deck area. Even when reality checks are not a formal requirement, it is good estimating practice to undertake a reality check on every estimate, to both verify the appropriateness of the estimate and also to contribute to the available database of estimating knowledge within RTA. RTA policy is that peer review be carried out wherever possible by a person of the next or same level of seniority to the person responsible for preparation of the estimate. While peer review would practically involve a lesser level of detail than that involved in preparation of the estimate, it is essential that the review focuses on the major items in sufficient 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 of major infrastructure items (b) the calculation of reality check rates, when preparing estimates for various projects. These guidelines clarify the grouping and the figures to be used for reality check calculations.

3 - 24


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

3.14.1 Earthworks
The 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 by using the dollar amounts and quantities for General Earthworks (Cut/Fill), Earthworks (Cut to Spoil) and Imported (Borrow) Material only.

3.14.2 Structures
The 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 by using the dollar amounts for Bridges and the deck area for Bridges only. For calculating the deck area of a bridge, the length should be measured between the inside face of abutment curtain walls and the breadth should be measured between the inside face of the outer parapets. Thus any footpath, if provided, would also be included in the deck area. Note: 1. Approach slabs, Retaining Walls and Structural Culverts are not to be included in Reality Check calculations. 2. Precast Box Culverts and Pipe Culverts are to be included under "Drainage"
RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001 Estimating Approach

3 - 25

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 Pavement
The reality check calculation for Pavement should be carried out by using 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 a separate item under "Roadworks".

3.14.5 Total Project Cost


The Reality Check calculation for Cost/ km should include the total project costs and length of the project on the main carriageway(s). The Reality Check calculation for Cost/lane km should include the total project cost and length of acceleration & deceleration lanes, left & right turn bays on the main carriageway(s) and include ramps at intersections. Note: 1. The total cost used in the Reality Check calculation should include cost of structures.

3 - 26


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

C
CHAPTER0

H A P T E R

ESTIMATE 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 high degree of consistency will be maintained through all RTA estimates.

4.2 Project Development Costs


These costs include activities in the Option Investigation, Concept Design 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 Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Estimate Components

4-1

RTA Project Management; and RTA Client Representation.

4.3 Detailed Investigation and Design Costs


These costs include all activities in the Detailed Design and Implementation phase between the end of the Design Development and Approval phase and commencement of tendering (with the exception of 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 Costs


Estimated property acquisition costs must be obtained from RTAs Property Section, for both metropolitan and rural property acquisitions. Cost estimates supplied are generally the actual estimated land acquisition costs at the time the estimate is prepared by RTAs Property Section, with no allowance for contingency or for possible future land cost variations. An appropriate contingency must be

4-2


Chapter 4 Issued December 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

applied, having regard to the expected timing of acquisition of the property and the complexity of the acquisitions. Generally acquisition complexity, and hence the appropriate level of contingency, is higher in urban and particularly metropolitan areas (where land values are more volatile and property adjustments are numerous) than in rural areas. The value of all land required for the project, either as the acquisition cost for newly acquired land, or the potential sale value for previously acquired land, must be included as a project cost. In the case of land which is required only for the period of construction, and which is acquired and subsequently disposed of rather then leased for the duration of project construction, a residual land value should be credited against the project cost. In some cases this may be the same as the acquisition cost of that land, but often will be less than the acquisition value due to the proximity of the project works and possible land 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 Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Estimate Components

4-3

RTAs site office and facilities areas, if separate from the Contractors 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 Construction


Infrastructure construction includes the production or construction of base infrastructure, environmental works, general activities and property 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 Costs


Utilities costs include all adjustments, replacements, relocations and the like which are required as a consequence of the project, whether undertaken by the responsible authority, a contractor engaged by that authority, or undertaken by RTA either as part of the main contractors works or by separate contract. In some cases, utilities adjustments may be undertaken partly by the project main contractor and partly by others, outside the main contract scope of works but still within the overall project scope. In such circumstances, care must be taken to ensure that the correct scopes of utilities adjustments are contained in the main contract scope and in the scope of other works, and that the scope description makes clear the division of utilities adjustments.

4-4


Chapter 4 Issued December 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

In the Sydney metropolitan area, some services, in particular old sewers and water supply tunnels, are heritage classified. Project works which could affect these services, such as tunnelling, can require extensive local additional work for protection of such services, the cost of which may be significant. Also in the Sydney metropolitan area are major electrical services owned by railways authorities, and which are unlikely to be detected in an enquiry to the electrical supply authorities. It is often difficult to ascertain the potential costs to RTA due to effects of a project on existing utilities. For example, a utility authority may not agree to meet the cost of relocation of a utility which was not supposed to be in the vicinity. An appropriate contingency, which is likely to be among the highest adopted for the project, particularly in the 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 Costs


Handover costs are those incurred by RTA when delivery of a new asset causes the management of either an old asset, previously the responsibility of RTA, or part of the new asset to be transferred to a body other than RTA (eg Local Council). Handover costs occur, for example, when a new section of road replaces an existing section, with the existing section becoming part of the local road network under the management of the local council. In such circumstances, RTA may be required to refurbish or resurface the existing road, install signage prior to its acceptance by the council or to
RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001 Estimate Components

4-5

contribute to the net present value of the future maintenance of the existing road. In some cases handover costs may occur when an existing structure is retained for heritage or other reasons and RTA is required to contribute to the ongoing maintenance costs. Examples of such costs are the retention of the old Glebe Island Bridge on completion of the Anzac Bridge and the retention of the Hawthorne Canal bridge on completion at the City West Link. A further example of handover costs occurs when roadside facilities are provided on a new section of road, such as rest areas and viewing points, the maintenance of which is the responsibility of the local council. In such cases, handover costs consist of the cost of preparation of maintenance manuals, setting out RTAs 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

4-6


Chapter 4 Issued December 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

C
CHAPTER0

H A P T E R

STRATEGIC ESTIMATE

5.1 Summary
This chapter sets down the process for preparation of a Strategic Estimate.

5.2 Overview
There are 3 key stages to the preparation of a Strategic Estimate. These are: Preliminary Project Appreciation Stage; Estimate Establishment Stage; and Review and Approval Stage.

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

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

5.3 Preliminary Project Appreciation Stage


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

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Strategic Estimate

5-1

5.3.1 Estimate Programme


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

5.3.2 Data Collection


The estimator must be provided with all relevant information. This will include: 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 Programme


A project development programme is to be prepared. This should indicate all significant activities and milestones, together with an approximate construction programme.

5.3.4 Quantities
Quantities are likely to be of a very approximate nature and will be taken-off by the estimator, based on his understanding of the project scope.

5.3.5 Site Visit


A site visit should be made by anyone on the estimating team who is unfamiliar with the project.

5-2


Chapter 5 Issued December 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

5.3.6 Construction Methods


For significant items (such as earthworks or road pavement), the estimator is to determine the probable construction methods that will be adopted by the successful tenderer.

5.4 Estimate Establishment Stage


This is the stage where the project estimate is actually produced. Before computations commence, the estimator must have regard to RTAs requirements as to final presentation of the estimate, and the Work Breakdown Structure and Summary required. A sample work breakdown structure is given in Appendix 5.2. The following paragraphs indicate the activities that will be undertaken for a Global Estimate:

5.4.1 Understanding Historical Data


Historical 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 Data


Historical data is to be adjusted to bring it in line with the requirements of 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.

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Strategic Estimate

5-3

5.4.3 Cost Estimate


The estimate is calculated, by multiplying the global quantities by rates deduced from historical data, or from multiplying the coarse quantities by the unit rates deduced from historical data.

5.4.4 Contractors Overheads, Risk and Margin


Generally the contractors overheads, risk and margin is included within the global rates adopted earlier and no further adjustment is required.

5.4.5 Project Development Costs


Project development costs are defined in Chapter 4. At the time of preparation of a Strategic Estimate, these costs have probably not been incurred and may be estimated from past experience.

5.4.6 Detailed Investigation and Design Costs


Detailed investigation and design costs are defined in Chapter 4. At the time of preparation of a Strategic Estimate, these costs have not been incurred and may be estimated from past experience.

5.4.7 Property Acquisition Costs


Property acquisition costs are defined in Chapter 4. Property acquisition costs must be obtained from RTAs Property Section. Allowances must be made for known property adjustments.

5.4.8 Hand over Costs


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

5-4


Chapter 5 Issued December 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

5.4.9 Risk & Opportunity


Issues of risk and opportunity are considered in Chapter 3. Some of the available software for use in quantification of risk and opportunity is listed in Chapter 10.3.

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

5.4.10 Contingency
Contingency is considered in Chapter 3. Appropriate contingencies must be added to each component of the project estimate. At strategic estimate stage, contingencies in the range of 35% to 50% are appropriate. Contingencies outside this range must be justified.

5.5 Review
Prior to commencement of the Concurrence, Approval and Acceptance procedure, the Project Manager should arrange a peer review of the estimate. This should follow a structured format and be documented.

5.6 Concurrence, Approval and Acceptance


All strategic estimates are subject to concurrence, approval and acceptance as detailed in Chapter 2. The procedure is detailed in the following flowcharts. [Extract from PMS 21 Manual.]
RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001 Strategic Estimate

5-5

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

Start
* Plans * * Strategic - Street Plan or Topographical Map showing alignment, Major Utilities - visible/known Concept - Longitudinal Section, Critical Sections. Typical Cross Sections (Cut/Fill), Most Utilities. Detailed - Full set of plans including longitudinal section, cross sections, Utilities locations clearly marked.

Project Manager

Project Manager

List Key Assumptions

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

Project M anager/Client Representative

Scope

Project Manager

List Known Risks * For all types of estimates use standard work breakdown structure in Table 3.1 of Project M anagement Guidelines "Estimating, Scope and Cost Control for Development Projects". Refer to Clause 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 RTA Estimating Manual. Consider known risks, staging, constructabliity, OHS&R, traffic management and other issues

Project Manager

Prepare Estimate in standard format

Project Manager

Provide Reality Checks

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

Project M anager/Senior Project Manager

Sign Off (preparation)

Project Manager

Is Estim of Cost over $20M, ate $10Mfor Federally funded or for a com project ? plex

NO

Submit estimate for approval: Section M anager <$5m Branch/Regional M anager >5m Information to be submitted with the estimate for a concurrence check: * Estimate Type * Plans * Scope * Key assumptions * Known risks * Reality check

YES
Project Manager Submit estimate for concurrence of General M anager, PM O

5-6


Chapter 5 Issued December 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

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

Project Manager to revise estimate / details

Estimator, PMO

* Log receipt of estimate * Is supporting information complete and amount of estimate acceptable ?

NO

YES
Estimator, PMO Sign Off (Concurrence Check)

General Manager, PMO

Sign Off (Concurrence)

Estimator, PMO

Return estimate and supporting information with GM, PMO Concurrence

Project Manager

Submit estimate for approval Section Manager <$5m Branch/Regional Manager $5m- $50m Director, Client Services > $50m

Client Representative

Is estimate consistent with project scoping and available funding ?

NO

YES
Client Representative Submit estimate to Client for acceptance

Client

*Estimate accepted * Project Budget set or revised

Appendix 5.3 contains a sample Strategic Cost Estimate Report submitted for Concurrence, Acceptance and Approval. FINISH
RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001 Strategic Estimate

5-7

Appendix 5.3 contains a sample strategic estimate report, to be submitted for concurrence, approval and acceptance of the strategic cost estimate. Appendix 5.4 contains the Verification Checklist, to be submitted for concurrence, approval and acceptance of the strategic cost estimate. Appendix 5.5 contains the Estimate Approval and Acceptance form to be submitted for concurrence, approval and acceptance of the strategic cost estimate.

5-8


Chapter 5 Issued December 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

A
CHAPTER0

P P E N D I X

5.1

SAMPLE COST ESTIMATE SCOPE

(This page intentionally left blank)

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). Total earthworks 71,540m3 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)

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 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 Total earthworks 215,764m3 Flexible crushed rock pavement with bituminous seal (Design life min 20 years)

* * * 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).

Approach bridge No 1 * * 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 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 - 970m long Section between Approach Bridges No 1 and Sturt Hwy - 209m long New junction with Sturt Highway at Berthan St Total earthworks 160,460m3 Flexible crushed rock pavement with bituminous seal (Design life min 20 years)

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).

Approach bridge No 1 * * 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 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 - 372m long Section between Approach Bridges No 1 and Sturt Hwy - 440m long Total earthworks 70,530m3 Flexible crushed rock pavement with bituminous seal (Design life min 20 years)

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.

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 connecting the high level bridge abutment to the roundabout in Euston (approximately 230m long). Total earthworks 70,750m3 Flexible crushed rock pavement with bituminous seal (Design life min 20 years)

* *

A
CHAPTER0

P P E N D I X

5.2

SAMPLE WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE

(This page intentionally left blank)

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 - Advice from other Government Agencies - Prepare EIS by Maunsells -Acid Soil Investigation -UNSW - Technical Input by Project Team - Acid Soil Peer Review-UTS - Concept Review by RTA Operations - Prepare Representations Report, Connell Wagner - Project Management by PHO - Project Estimating by PMO - Client Representation by PHO - Geotechnical Investigation by ETEC - Hydraulics/Hydrology by Water Pty/Ltd - Koala Monitoring -Aus. Museum - Advice from other Government Agencies - Public Utility Search by Seek - Roadworks Design, RTA Operations - Bridgeworks Design by Maunsells - Design Review by Kinhills - Technical Input by Project Team - Prepare Project EMP by Acacia - Prepare Contract Documents, Northern Region - Road Safety Audits by Northern Region - Prepare detailed estimate by Northern Region - Project Management by Northern Region - Client Representation by PHO - Property Valuations by VG - Cadastral Survey by Pointed Pty Ltd - Purchase A J King Property - Purchase Betters Property - Demolition of Jack Property by Acme - Project Management by Hunter Region - Client Representation by PHO

C C C C C C C C PC PC MC D D D D D D D D D D D D PD PD MD V V A A A PA MA U U U PU MU

EC ACQUT EC EC RTAD EC RTAB EC RTAB RTAD RTAD EC EC EC ACQUT EC RTAB EC EC RTAD EC RTAD RTAD RTAD RTAD RTAD ACQUT EC ACQUT ACQUT EC RTAD RTAD ACQUT ACQUT ACQUT RTAB RTAD

2. Detailed Investigation and Design

3. Property Acquisition

4. Public Utility Adjustments - Telstra Adjustments - Electricity by Energy Australia - Water/Sewerage by Byron Council - Project Management by PMS - Client Representation by PHO

Job

Subjobs

Subjob Component Code I I I I PI PS MI I I I PI PI PS PS MI MI O H H PH MH

Service Competition Category EC RTAB RTAD EC RTAD EC RTAD EC RTAD EC RTAB RTAB RTAB EC RTAD RTAD LGF RTAB EC RTAB RTAD

5. Bridge Construction

- Y River Bridge by Fernandes - 2 Creek Bridge by RTA Hunter Region - Technical Advice, Bridge Branch - Review of EMP by Acacia - Project Management by PMS - Site management & Surveillance by PED - Client Representation by PHO - Roadworks by Big Contractor Pty Ltd - Technical Advice - Pavement Branch - Demolition of Jack property by Acme - Systems Auditing by Project Team - Project Management by PMS - Construction Surveillance by PMS - Site management & Surveillance by PED - Client Representation by PHO - Decision Report Audit by PHO - Refurbish Old Network by Council - Project Data & Reporting by CMP - Prepare Operations EMP by Acacia - Project Management by PMS - Client Representation by PHO

6. Roadwork Construction

7. Handover

A
CHAPTER 0

P P E N D I X

5.3

SAMPLE STRATEGIC ESTIMATE REPORT

(This page intentionally left blank)

10/196.1593 AJS

Memorandum
Pacific Highway Office
TO: General Manager Project Management Office BLACKTOWN FROM: R Dallen Project Development Manager 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.

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; 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 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.

2.

3.

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.

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. 66300 Project Description Upgrade from Moorland to Herons Creek 65556 65167 68221 62185 3893 66301 64706 1846 4087 Sapphire to Woolgoolga Buladelah Bypass Bangalow to St. Helena Ballina Bypass Lyons Road to Englands Road Taree to Coopernook Coopernook Bypass Taree Bypass Raymond Terrace Bypass 66166 4521 Coolongolook to Wang Wauk Wang Wauk to Bundacree Creek Dec-98 13.9 21,000 1,511 na 23.4 49,200 2,103 na na May-00 Dec-98 29.6 16.8 58 39.14 53,000 60,000 125,800 77,700 1,791 3,571 2,169 1,985 na na 50.8 21.2 198,000 58,400 3,900 2,755 Revised Concept Estimate. Under construction. Heavy traffic conditions Concept Estimate. Concept Estimate. Floodplain and River crossings. Greenfields, staging was not ideal due to late decision to duplicate bypass. Under construction. Minimum work on existing carriageway na na 32.8 to 39.2 20.9 130,057 to 148,456 65,000 3,330 to 4,472 3,100 Revised Strategic Estimate Concept Estimate na 85 to 100 145,673 to 206,625 1,714 to 2,066 Strategic Estimate Date open na Lane km Total Project Cost ($,000) 147,020 to 176,754 Cost / Lane km ($,000) 1,500 to 1,750 Comment

98 to 101

Strategic Estimate

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

(b)

(c)

ATTACHMENTS TO THIS MEMORANDUM Please find attached the following: (a) (b) (c) Attachment A - Map of study area. Attachment B Community Newsletter No.1. 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). 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. Attachment E Summary of Environmental Issues. (Extract from the Strategic Concept Design Report prepared by RTA Operations). Attachment F - Estimate Approval and Acceptance Form.

(d) (e) (f)

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.

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.

MHSEMEM2.DOC

Strategic Estimate of Cost

Upgrade from Moorland to Herons Creek

Attachment A - Map of study area.

Attachment A

Strategic Estimate of Cost

Upgrade from Moorland to Herons Creek

Attachment B Community Newsletter No.1.

Attachment B

Strategic Estimate of Cost

Upgrade from Moorland to Herons Creek

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)

Attachment C

ESTIMATE SUMMARY SHEET - ESTIMATE A


Project: Project No.

MOORLAND to HERONS CK. - Existing Highway Upgrade


66300 Estimate $000's (excluding contingency) 5,583 462 110 6,155 Date: February 2001 Contingency % Amount $000's Estimate Type: Estimate $000's (including contingency) 7,061 578 138 7,776 % of Total Cost Strategic (Lowest Cost Scenario)

Item 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

Comments

26 25 25 26

1,478 116 28 1,621

Based on detailed estimate including Professional Services Contractor's price (Ove Arup & Partners). Extensive Geotechnical Investigation allowed prior 5.29 to Detailed Design and Implementation. Includes allowances for Geotech (fine tuning), Bridge Road Drainage & Pavement Design, Construction Staging, Visual Landscape & Urban Design, Environmental Risk & Value 2.66 Management, Community Consult, etc Assumes existing corridor used and only major acquisitions are through Johns River and Kew (80km/hr Design through townships) 5.66

2,530 385 88 3,003

30 30 30 30

759 116 26 901

3,289 501 114 3,904

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. Infrastructure Construction 5(a +b+c) Infrastructure See Below 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

3,200 1,255 275 11 4,741

100 25 25 25 76

3,200 314 69 3 3,585

6,400 1,569 344 14 8,327

1,550 44 11 1,605

100 40 25 98

1,550 18 3 1,570

3,100 62 14 3,175 2.16

Locations of major services plant known.

84,940 6,820 132 91,892

35 25 25 35

30,088 1,705 33 31,826

115,028 8,525 165 123,718 84.15 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.) 0.09

60 22 11 93 107,489

40 40 25 25 35 37

24 6 3 32 39,535

84 28 14 125 147,024

TOTAL

Rounded Total $M

150

* Calculation Spreadsheet for Item 5 - Infrastructure Construction Components 5(a), 5(b) and 5(c) - Infrastructure
5. Infrastructure Construction
Item Estimate (excluding contingency) Contingency % Contingency Amount Estimate (including contingency)

Infrastructure
5(a) Base Infrastruture - Earthworks - Drainage - Pavements - Structures - Furniture/signs/delineation/barriers Sub Total 5(b) Environmental Works - Landscaping - Erosion and sed control inc wetlands - Fauna crossings/protection - Noise attenuation - Compensatory Habitat - Environmental Monitoring - Other Agency Costs Sub Total 5(c) General Activities - Site establishment & overhead - Property adjustments / fencing - Traffic Management Sub Total 10,675 6,570 36,775 14,000 2,960 70,980 2,000 2,220 1,000 3,500 500 500 50 9,770 750 775 2,665 4,190 84,940 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 40 35 45 43 35 3,779 2,300 12,871 4,900 1,036 24,886 700 777 350 1,225 175 175 18 3,420 300 271 1,211 1,783 30,088 14,454 8,870 49,646 18,900 3,996 95,866 2,700 2,997 1,350 4,725 675 675 68 13,190 1,050 1,046 3,876 5,973 115,028

TOTAL
Note: All figures are current $000's

Total Amount $M Project Management Client Representation 10.04 0.46

% of Total Est 6.8 0.3

MHSEPMO4.XLS - Est. Summary Sht-A

Page 1

24/04/2001

Reality Checks Cost $M/km Cost $M/lane*km Cost $/m3 earthworks Cost $/m Pavement Cost $/m2 Bridges
2

6.71 1.50 10.00 90.00 2,000.00

SUPPORTING ASSUMPTIONS - Estimate A - Existing Highway Upgrade Length km Lane km Typical Cross Section: Travel Lane Turning/Auxillary Lanes Central Median Outer Shoulder Inner Shoulder Interchanges: Length (km/m) 21.9 98 Width m Quantity (m2/m3) $Rate

3.5 4 3.0/3.5 various 11 1 2.5 2 0.5 2 Nil. This option based on upgrading the existing highway at Johns River & Kew. Traffic Signals allowed at Kew. 17,500 25,000 105 2,415 105 315 105 473 1,733 525 105 347 735 6,962 275,000 185,000 600,000 230,000 125,000 90 65

Major Intersections: 7 @ 700m extra lanes @ 3.5m 5km 3.5 Local Road/ Service Rds: Various locations, assume 2.5km 10 Major Structures (based on existing lengths, duplicate for new carriageway): Johns River Township (Unnamed) 10 10.5 Stewarts River 230 10.5 Passionfruit Ck 10 10.5 Stoney Ck 15 21 Unnamed Ck 10 10.5 Rossglen Rail Overbridge 45 10.5 Camden Haven River 165 10.5 Camden Haven Floodplain 25 21 Walkers Ck 10 10.5 Herons Ck Flood Channel 33 10.5 Herons Ck Bridge 35 21 Total 588 Main Pavements: New Carriageway Overlay Existing Earthworks: Cut Fill Select Fill Drainage other than major structures: 21.9km

2,000 90 65 10 10 25 300,000

OTHER SUPPORTING DATA


Corporate Contributions: Project Development: 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. 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. 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.

Investigation and design:

Typical Cross Section:

Acquisition:

Utilities: Earthworks: Drainage:

Pavement: Structures:

Fauna/ Compensatory Habitat: Noise Attenuation:

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 (Note 1) RATE BASE TOTAL ($) 300,000 200,000 500,000 500,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 500,000 75,000 420,000 100,000 300,000 200,000 500,000 500,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 500,000 75,000 5,075,000 420,000 100,000 5,595,000 CORPORATE CONTRIBUTION % 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 ($) 30,000 20,000 50,000 50,000 100,000 200,000 50,000 7,500 507,500 42,000 10,000 559,500 ESTIMATE EXCLUDING CONTINGENCY CONTINGENCY ($) % ($) 330,000 220,000 550,000 550,000 1,100,000 2,200,000 550,000 82,500 5,582,500 462,000 110,000 6,154,500 0 25 25 25 30 30 25 25 26 25 25 26 0 55,000 137,500 137,500 330,000 660,000 137,500 20,625 1,478,125 115,500 27,500 1,621,125 ESTIMATE INCLUDING CONTINGENCY ($) 330,000 275,000 687,500 687,500 1,430,000 2,860,000 687,500 103,125 7,060,625 577,500 137,500 7,775,625 COMMENTS

1. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
1(a) 1(a) 1(a) 1(a) 1(a) 1(a) 1(a) 1(a) 1(a) 1(b) 1(c) Strategic Concept Development Survey/Photogrammetry Route Options/Selection Preliminary Engineering Design EIS/Community Geotechnical Inv.- Prelim. & Det. RTA Input including Rep's Report Other Agencies item item item item item item item item 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTALS 1 1 RTA Operations These elements make up ARUP services plus detailed Geotech contract.

Project Management item Client Representation item TOTALS FOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

2. INVESTIGATION AND DESIGN


2(a) 2(a) 2(a) 2(a) 2(b) 2(c) Detailed design & docs Environmental monitoring Other Agencies item item item 1 1 1 SUBTOTALS 1 1 2,000,000 250,000 50,000 350,000 80,000 2,000,000 250,000 50,000 2,300,000 350,000 80,000 2,730,000 10 10 10 10 10 200,000 25,000 5,000 230,000 35,000 8,000 273,000 2,200,000 275,000 55,000 2,530,000 385,000 88,000 3,003,000 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 660,000 82,500 16,500 759,000 115,500 26,400 900,900 2,860,000 357,500 71,500 3,289,000 500,500 114,400 3,903,900

Project Management item Client Representation item TOTALS FOR INVESTIGATION AND DESIGN

3. PROPERTY ACQUISITION
3(a) 3(a) 3(a) 3(a) 3(b) 3(b) 3(b) 3(b) 3(b) 3(b) 3(b) 3(c) 3(d) Residential Land/Houses Rural Land Commercial Land Acquisition Survey Plans and Registrations Technical Input Valuations Property Negotiations Legals & Fees item Ha m2 item properties properties properties properties properties 1 10 0 SUBTOTALS 1 65 65 65 65 65 SUBTOTALS 1 1 3,000,000 20,000 3,000,000 200,000 0 3,200,000 150,000 65,000 32,500 65,000 243,750 650,000 1,206,250 250,000 10,000 4,666,250 0 0 0 0 15,000 6,500 3,250 0 24,375 0 49,125 25,000 1,000 75,125 3,000,000 100 200,000 100 0 3,200,000 100 165,000 25 71,500 25 35,750 25 65,000 25 268,125 25 650,000 25 1,255,375 25 275,000 25 11,000 25 4,741,375 76 3,000,000 200,000 0 3,200,000 41,250 17,875 8,938 16,250 67,031 162,500 313,844 68,750 2,750 3,585,344 6,000,000 Blocks < 1500m2 400,000 0 6,400,000 206,250 89,375 44,688 81,250 335,156 812,500 1,569,219 343,750 13,750 8,326,719

150,000 1,000 500 1,000 3,750 10,000 250,000 10,000

10 10 10 10

Project Management item Client Representation item TOTALS FOR PROPERTY ACQUISITION

10 10

4. PUBLIC UTILITY ADJUSTMENTS


4(a) 4(a) 4(a) 4(a) 4(a) 4(a) 4(a) 4(b) 4(c) Sewer Water - Various dia. Gas Electricity (crossings) Telstra Optus item m item ea item item 1 3,200 0 6 1 1 SUBTOTALS 1 1 100,000 100 30,000 300,000 650,000 40,000 10,000 100,000 320,000 0 180,000 300,000 650,000 1,550,000 40,000 10,000 1,600,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,000 1,000 5,000 100,000 320,000 0 180,000 300,000 650,000 1,550,000 44,000 11,000 1,605,000 100 100 100 100 100 100 40 25 98 100,000 320,000 0 180,000 300,000 650,000 1,550,000 17,600 2,750 1,570,350 200,000 640,000 0 360,000 600,000 1,300,000 3,100,000 61,600 13,750 3,175,350

Project Management item Client Representation item TOTALS FOR PUBLIC UTILITY ADJUSTMENTS

10 10

5. INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION 5(a)Base Infrastructure


Earthworks Earthworks Earthworks Earthworks Earthworks Earthworks Earthworks Earthworks Drainage Drainage Pavements Pavements Pavements Structures Structures Furniture etc. Furniture etc. Furniture etc. Furniture etc. Furniture etc. Furniture etc. Furniture etc. Clearing Strip Topsoil Cut to Spoil Unsuitable Cut to Fill Select Fill Reinforced Soil walls General drainage Ha m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 item km 20 30,000 340,000 30,000 230,000 125,000 1 SUBTOTALS 21.9 SUBTOTALS 275,000 185,000 SUBTOTALS 7,000 SUBTOTALS 13,000 400 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTALS 5,000 10 10 15 10 25 1,000,000 300,000 100,000 300,000 3,400,000 450,000 2,300,000 3,125,000 1,000,000 10,675,000 6,570,000 6,570,000 24,750,000 12,025,000 36,775,000 14,000,000 14,000,000 1,560,000 100,000 400,000 200,000 400,000 300,000 2,960,000 70,980,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 300,000 3,400,000 450,000 2,300,000 3,125,000 1,000,000 10,675,000 6,570,000 6,570,000 24,750,000 12,025,000 36,775,000 14,000,000 14,000,000 1,560,000 100,000 400,000 200,000 400,000 300,000 2,960,000 70,980,000 40 40 35 40 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 40,000 120,000 1,190,000 180,000 805,000 1,093,750 350,000 3,778,750 2,299,500 2,299,500 8,662,500 4,208,750 12,871,250 4,900,000 4,900,000 546,000 35,000 140,000 70,000 140,000 105,000 1,036,000 24,885,500 140,000 420,000 4,590,000 630,000 3,105,000 4,218,750 1,350,000 14,453,750 8,869,500 200mm allowed

500mm layer allowed Adjacent Railway Includes culverts, pits,subsoils, K&G, GPTs.

Pavement Asphalt Overlay (200mm) Bridges & Major Structures (11) Barriers - g'rail/wire rope Type F barrier/Parapet Linemark/Painting/RPMs Signposting Traffic Signals (Ocean Drive) Street Lighting

m2 m2 m2 m m item item item item

90 65 2,000 120 250 400,000 200,000 400,000 300,000

SUBTOTALS FOR BASE INFRASTRUCTURE

8,869,500 33,412,500 Refer Note 2 16,233,750 Overlay existing 49,646,250 18,900,000 18,900,000 2,106,000 135,000 Nominal Allowance 540,000 Allowance only 270,000 Allowance only 540,000 405,000 Allowance only 3,996,000 95,865,500

5(b) Environmental Works


Landscaping Temp. Erosion & Sed. Control Permanent Sed. Basins Water Quality/Spillage Ponds Fauna Crossings, Fencing, etc. Noise attenuation Compensatory Habitat Environmental Monitoring Other Agency Costs item item ea ea item m
2

item item item

1 SUBTOTALS 1 8 14 SUBTOTALS 1 SUBTOTALS 10,000 SUBTOTALS 1 SUBTOTALS 1 SUBTOTALS 1 SUBTOTALS

2,000,000 600,000 150,000 30,000 1,000,000 350 500,000 500,000 50,000

SUBTOTALS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL WORKS

2,000,000 2,000,000 600,000 1,200,000 420,000 2,220,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 50,000 50,000 9,770,000

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2,000,000 2,000,000 600,000 1,200,000 420,000 2,220,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 50,000 50,000 9,770,000

35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35

700,000 700,000 210,000 420,000 147,000 777,000 350,000 350,000 1,225,000 1,225,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 17,500 17,500 3,419,500

2,700,000 2,700,000 810,000 1,620,000 567,000 2,997,000 1,350,000 1,350,000 4,725,000 4,725,000 675,000 675,000 675,000 675,000 67,500 67,500 13,189,500

Allowance only Allowance only

Allowance incl. 5km fence Johns River & Kew Allowance only Allowance only Allowance only

5(c) General Activities


Site Establishment & Overheads Property Adjustments Demolition/relocation Fencing Temp Traffic Works Traffic Guidance Road Occupancy Charges item properties houses m m2 item item 1 SUBTOTALS 65 5 5,000 SUBTOTALS 4,500 1 1 SUBTOTALS 750,000 10,000 10,000 15 70 2,000,000 350,000 750,000 750,000 650,000 50,000 75,000 775,000 315,000 2,000,000 350,000 2,665,000 4,190,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 750,000 750,000 650,000 50,000 75,000 775,000 315,000 2,000,000 350,000 2,665,000 4,190,000 40 40 35 35 35 35 75 40 50 45 43 300,000 300,000 227,500 17,500 26,250 271,250 236,250 800,000 175,000 1,211,250 1,782,500 1,050,000 1,050,000 877,500 67,500 101,250 1,046,250 551,250 2,800,000 525,000 3,876,250 5,972,500 Allowance only

Allowance only Allowance only Allowance only

SUBTOTALS FOR GENERAL ACTIVITIES

Construction Management etc.


5(d) 5(d) 5(d) 5(e) Site Surveillance Project Management 1 1 SUBTOTALS Client Representation item 1 SUBTOTALS FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ETC. TOTALS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION item item 5,000,000 1,200,000 120,000 5,000,000 1,200,000 6,200,000 120,000 6,320,000 91,260,000 10 10 10 500,000 120,000 620,000 12,000 632,000 632,000 5,500,000 1,320,000 6,820,000 132,000 6,952,000 91,892,000 25 25 25 25 25 35 1,375,000 330,000 1,705,000 33,000 1,738,000 31,825,500 6,875,000 200 weeks @ $25,000 1,650,000 240 weeks @ $5,000 8,525,000 165,000 8,690,000 123,717,500

6. PROJECT HANDOVER
6(a) (6b) Refurbish old route Operation/Mtce Mgt Plan Project Data & Performance Project Management Client Representation TOTALS FOR PROJECT HANDOVER item item item item item 0 1 1 SUBTOTALS 1 1 0 20,000 40,000 20,000 10,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 20,000 10,000 90,000 0 0 0 0 2,000 1,000 3,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 22,000 11,000 93,000 40 40 40 40 25 25 35 0 8,000 16,000 24,000 5,500 2,750 32,250 0 28,000 56,000 84,000 27,500 13,750 125,250

6(c) 6(d)

10 10

GRAND TOTALS
Project Management Costs: % of Total Estimate: Client Representation Costs: % of Total Estimate:

105,941,250
10,035,850 6.83 458,150 0.31

1,547,625

107,488,875

37 39,535,469

147,024,344

Unit rate ($/km): 6,713,440 (21.9km long)

NOTES: 1. Quantities are strategic only. 2. Road pavement assumed as 150mm 5MPa subbase + 200mm dense grade asphalt base. 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 B


Project: Project No.

MOORLAND to HERONS CK. - Inner West Bypass at Johns River & Inner West Bypass at Kew
66300 Estimate $000's (excluding contingency) 5,583 462 110 6,155 Date: February 2001 Contingency % Amount $000's Estimate Type: Estimate $000's % of Total Cost (including contingency) 7,061 578 138 7,776 Strategic (Mid Range Cost Scenario)

Item 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

Comments

26 25 25 26

1,478 116 28 1,621

Based on detailed estimate including Professional Services Contractor's price (Ove Arup & Partners). Extensive Geotechnical Investigation allowed prior 4.64 to Detailed Design and Implementation. Includes allowances for Geotech (fine tuning), Bridge Road Drainage & Pavement Design, Construction Staging, Visual Landscape & Urban Design, Environmental Risk & Value 2.33 Management, Community Consult, 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). 5.84

2,530 385 88 3,003

30 30 30 30

759 116 26 901

3,289 501 114 3,904

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. Infrastructure Construction 5(a +b+c) Infrastructure See Below 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

2,500 1,608 275 11 4,394

87 25 25 25 90

3,460 402 69 3 3,933

7,420 2,010 344 14 9,787

1,750 44 11 1,805

100 40 25 98

1,750 18 3 1,770

3,500 62 14 3,575 2.13

Locations of major plant known.

97,413 6,820 132 104,365

35 25 25 35

34,448 1,705 33 36,186

131,860 8,525 165 140,550 83.93 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.) 1.12

1,250 60 22 11 1,343 121,064

40 40 25 25 40 37

500 24 6 3 532 44,944

1,750 84 28 14 1,875 167,467

TOTAL

Rounded Total $M

170

* Calculation Spreadsheet for Item 5 - Infrastructure Construction Components 5(a), 5(b) and 5(c) - Infrastructure
5. Infrastructure Construction
Item Estimate (excluding contingency) Contingency Contingency Amount % Estimate (including contingency)

Infrastructure
5(a) Base Infrastruture - Earthworks - Drainage - Pavements - Structures - Furniture/signs/delineation/fencing Sub Total 5(b) Environmental Works - Landscaping - Erosion and sed control inc wetlands - Fauna crossings/protection - Noise attenuation - Compensatory Habitat -Environmental Monitoring -Other Agency Costs Sub Total 5(c) General Activities - Site establishment & overheads - Property adjustments / fencing - Traffic Management Sub Total 15,755 6,600 39,325 17,200 3,120 82,000 2,000 2,900 1,000 4,200 500 500 50 11,150 750 1,018 2,495 4,263 97,413 36 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 40 35 44 41 35 5,595 2,310 13,764 6,020 1,092 28,780 700 1,015 350 1,470 175 175 18 3,903 300 356 1,109 1,765 34,448 21,350 8,910 53,089 23,220 4,212 110,780 2,700 3,915 1,350 5,670 675 675 68 15,053 1,050 1,374 3,604 6,027 131,860

TOTAL
Note: All figures are current $000's

Total Amount $M Project Management Client Representation 10.04 0.46

% of Total Est 6.0 0.3

MHSEPMO4.XLS - Est. Summary Sht-B

Page 1

24/04/2001

Reality Checks Cost $M/km Cost $M/lane*km Cost $/m3 earthworks Cost $/m2 Pavement Cost $/m2 Bridges 7.61 1.69 10.00 90.00 2,000.00

SUPPORTING ASSUMPTIONS - Estimate B - Inner West Bypasses at Johns River & Kew Length km Lane km Typical Cross Section: 3.5 Travel Lane 3.0/3.5 Turning/Auxillary Lanes Central Median 11 Outer Shoulder 2.5 Inner Shoulder 0.5 Interchanges: Kew (1 ea) 3km 3.5 Major Intersections: 6 of @ 700m extra lanes @ 3.5m 4km 3.5 Local Road/ Service Rds: Various locations, assume 2km 10 Major Structures (based on existing lengths, duplicate for new carriageway): Johns River Township (Unnamed) 10 21 Stewarts River Road Overbridges 30 21 Unnamed Ck 6 21 Stewarts River 230 10.5 Passionfruit Ck 10 10.5 Stoney Ck 15 21 Unnamed Ck 10 10.5 Rossglen Rail Overbridge 45 10.5 Camden Haven River 165 10.5 Camden Haven Floodplain 25 21 Kew Interchange Overbridges 35 21 Walkers Ck 10 10.5 Herons Ck Flood Channel 33 10.5 Herons Ck Bridge 35 21 Total 659 Main Pavements: New Carriageway Overlay Existing Earthworks: Cut Fill Select Fill Drainage other than major structures: 22.0km Length (km/m) 22.0 99 Width m Quantity (m2/m3) $Rate

4 various 1 2 2 10,000 15,000 15,000 210 630 126 2,415 105 315 105 473 1,733 525 735 105 347 735 8,558 325,000 155,000 1,000,000 400,000 150,000 90 90 65

2,000 90 65 10 10 25 300,000

OTHER SUPPORTING DATA


Corporate Contributions: Project Development: Corporate Contribution has been set at 10% for this Strategic Estimate. (Refer Subsidiary Sheet). Represents 4.3% 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 2.3% 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. Location of major plant is known from earlier investigations. Allowance is considered reasonable. 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. 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 carriageway with 200mm Asphalt. 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 Nation 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. Amount reflects the proximety of the proposed bypass routes to potentially impacted areas.

Investigation and design:

Typical Cross Section: Acquisition:

Utilities: Earthworks: Drainage: Pavement: Structures:

Fauna/ Compensatory Habitat: Noise Attenuation:

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)
CATEGORY ITEM UNIT QUANTITY (Note 1) RATE BASE TOTAL ($) 300,000 200,000 500,000 500,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 500,000 75,000 420,000 100,000 300,000 200,000 500,000 500,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 500,000 75,000 5,075,000 420,000 100,000 5,595,000 CORPORATE CONTRIBUTION % 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 ($) 30,000 20,000 50,000 50,000 100,000 200,000 50,000 7,500 507,500 42,000 10,000 559,500 ESTIMATE EXCLUDING CONTINGENCY ($) 330,000 220,000 550,000 550,000 1,100,000 2,200,000 550,000 82,500 5,582,500 462,000 110,000 6,154,500 CONTINGENCY % 0 25 25 25 30 30 25 25 26 25 25 26 ($) 0 55,000 137,500 137,500 330,000 660,000 137,500 20,625 1,478,125 115,500 27,500 1,621,125 ESTIMATE INCLUDING CONTINGENCY ($) 330,000 275,000 687,500 687,500 1,430,000 2,860,000 687,500 103,125 7,060,625 577,500 137,500 7,775,625 COMMENTS

1. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
1(a) 1(a) 1(a) 1(a) 1(a) 1(a) 1(a) 1(a) 1(a) 1(b) 1(c) Strategic Concept Development Survey/Photogrammetry Route Options/Selection Preliminary Engineering Design EIS/Community Geotechnical Inv.- Prelim. & Det. RTA Input including Rep's Report Other Agencies item item item item item item item item 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTALS 1 1 RTA Operations These elements make up ARUP services plus detailed Geotech contract.

Project Management item Client Representation item TOTALS FOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

2. INVESTIGATION AND DESIGN


2(a) 2(a) 2(a) 2(a) 2(b) 2(c) Detailed design & docs Environmental monitoring Other Agencies item item item 1 1 1 SUBTOTALS 1 1 2,000,000 250,000 50,000 350,000 80,000 2,000,000 250,000 50,000 2,300,000 350,000 80,000 2,730,000 10 10 10 10 10 200,000 25,000 5,000 230,000 35,000 8,000 273,000 2,200,000 275,000 55,000 2,530,000 385,000 88,000 3,003,000 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 660,000 82,500 16,500 759,000 115,500 26,400 900,900 2,860,000 357,500 71,500 3,289,000 500,500 114,400 3,903,900

Project Management item Client Representation item TOTALS FOR INVESTIGATION AND DESIGN

3. PROPERTY ACQUISITION
3(a) 3(a) 3(a) 3(a) 3(a) 3(b) 3(b) 3(b) 3(b) 3(b) 3(b) 3(b) 3(c) 3(d) Residential Land/Houses Rural Land Commercial Land Golf Course Effects Acquisition Survey Plans and Registrations Technical Input Valuations Property Negotiations Legals & Fees item Ha m2 item item properties properties properties properties properties 1 23 0 1 SUBTOTALS 1 86 86 86 86 86 SUBTOTALS 1 1 2,500,000 20,000 1,000,000 150,000 1,000 500 1,000 3,750 10,000 250,000 10,000 2,500,000 460,000 0 1,000,000 3,960,000 150,000 86,000 43,000 86,000 322,500 860,000 1,547,500 250,000 10,000 5,767,500 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 8,600 4,300 0 32,250 0 60,150 25,000 1,000 86,150 2,500,000 100 460,000 100 0 1,000,000 50 3,960,000 87 165,000 25 94,600 25 47,300 25 86,000 25 354,750 25 860,000 25 1,607,650 25 275,000 25 11,000 25 5,853,650 67 2,500,000 460,000 0 500,000 3,460,000 41,250 23,650 11,825 21,500 88,688 215,000 401,913 68,750 2,750 3,933,413 5,000,000 Blocks < 1500m2 920,000 0 1,500,000 7,420,000 206,250 118,250 59,125 107,500 443,438 1,075,000 2,009,563 343,750 13,750 9,787,063

10 10 10 10

Project Management item Client Representation item TOTALS FOR PROPERTY ACQUISITION

10 10

4. PUBLIC UTILITY ADJUSTMENTS


4(a) 4(a) 4(a) 4(a) 4(a) 4(a) 4(a) 4(b) 4(c) Sewer Water - Various dia. Gas Electricity (crossings) Telstra Optus item m item ea item item 1 3,500 0 10 1 1 SUBTOTALS 1 1 100,000 100 30,000 350,000 650,000 40,000 10,000 100,000 350,000 0 300,000 350,000 650,000 1,750,000 40,000 10,000 1,800,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,000 1,000 5,000 100,000 350,000 0 300,000 350,000 650,000 1,750,000 44,000 11,000 1,805,000 100 100 100 100 100 100 40 25 98 100,000 350,000 0 300,000 350,000 650,000 1,750,000 17,600 2,750 1,770,350 200,000 700,000 0 600,000 700,000 1,300,000 3,500,000 61,600 13,750 3,575,350

Project Management item Client Representation item TOTALS FOR PUBLIC UTILITY ADJUSTMENTS

10 10

5. INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION 5(a)Base Infrastructure


Earthworks Earthworks Earthworks Earthworks Earthworks Earthworks Earthworks Earthworks Drainage Drainage Pavements Pavements Pavements Structures Structures Furniture etc. Furniture etc. Furniture etc. Furniture etc. Furniture etc. Furniture etc. Clearing Strip Topsoil Cut to Spoil Unsuitable Cut to Fill Select Fill Reinforced Soil walls General drainage Ha m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 item km 33 54,000 540,000 60,000 400,000 150,000 1 SUBTOTALS 22.0 SUBTOTALS 325,000 155,000 SUBTOTALS 8,600 SUBTOTALS 16,000 600 1 1 1 SUBTOTALS 5,000 10 10 15 10 25 1,000,000 300,000 165,000 540,000 5,400,000 900,000 4,000,000 3,750,000 1,000,000 15,755,000 6,600,000 6,600,000 29,250,000 10,075,000 39,325,000 17,200,000 17,200,000 1,920,000 150,000 400,000 300,000 350,000 3,120,000 82,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 165,000 540,000 5,400,000 900,000 4,000,000 3,750,000 1,000,000 15,755,000 6,600,000 6,600,000 29,250,000 10,075,000 39,325,000 17,200,000 17,200,000 1,920,000 150,000 400,000 300,000 350,000 3,120,000 82,000,000 40 40 35 40 35 35 35 36 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 66,000 216,000 1,890,000 360,000 1,400,000 1,312,500 350,000 5,594,500 2,310,000 2,310,000 10,237,500 3,526,250 13,763,750 6,020,000 6,020,000 672,000 52,500 140,000 105,000 122,500 1,092,000 28,780,250 231,000 756,000 7,290,000 1,260,000 5,400,000 5,062,500 1,350,000 21,349,500 8,910,000 200mm allowed

500mm layer allowed Adjacent Railway Includes culverts, pits,subsoils, K&G, GPTs.

Pavement Asphalt Overlay (200mm) Bridges & Major Structures (11) Barriers - g'rail/wire rope Type F barrier/Parapet Linemark/Painting/RPMs Signposting Street Lighting

m2 m2 m2 m m item item item

90 65 2,000 120 250 400,000 300,000 350,000

SUBTOTALS FOR BASE INFRASTRUCTURE

8,910,000 39,487,500 Refer Note 2 13,601,250 Overlay existing 53,088,750 23,220,000 23,220,000 2,592,000 202,500 Nominal Allowance 540,000 Allowance only 405,000 Allowance only 472,500 Allowance only 4,212,000 110,780,250

5(b) Environmental Works


Landscaping Temp. Erosion & Sed. Control Permanent Sed. Basins Water Quality/Spillage Ponds Fauna Crossings, Fencing, etc. Noise attenuation Compensatory Habitat Environmental Monitoring Other Agency Costs item item ea ea item m
2

item item item

1 SUBTOTALS 1 12 15 SUBTOTALS 1 SUBTOTALS 12,000 SUBTOTALS 1 SUBTOTALS 1 SUBTOTALS 1 SUBTOTALS

2,000,000 650,000 150,000 30,000 1,000,000 350 500,000 500,000 50,000

SUBTOTALS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL WORKS

2,000,000 2,000,000 650,000 1,800,000 450,000 2,900,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 50,000 50,000 11,150,000

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2,000,000 2,000,000 650,000 1,800,000 450,000 2,900,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 50,000 50,000 11,150,000

35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35

700,000 700,000 227,500 630,000 157,500 1,015,000 350,000 350,000 1,470,000 1,470,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 17,500 17,500 3,902,500

2,700,000 2,700,000 877,500 2,430,000 607,500 3,915,000 1,350,000 1,350,000 5,670,000 5,670,000 675,000 675,000 675,000 675,000 67,500 67,500 15,052,500

Allowance only Allowance only

Allowance incl. 5km fence Johns River & Kew Allowance only Allowance only Allowance only

5(c) General Activities


Site Establishment & Overheads Property Adjustments Demolition/relocation Fencing Temp Traffic Works Traffic Guidance Road Occupancy Charges item properties houses m m2 item item 1 SUBTOTALS 73 10 12,500 SUBTOTALS 3,500 1 1 SUBTOTALS 750,000 10,000 10,000 15 70 2,000,000 250,000 750,000 750,000 730,000 100,000 187,500 1,017,500 245,000 2,000,000 250,000 2,495,000 4,262,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 750,000 750,000 730,000 100,000 187,500 1,017,500 245,000 2,000,000 250,000 2,495,000 4,262,500 40 40 35 35 35 35 75 40 50 44 41 300,000 300,000 255,500 35,000 65,625 356,125 183,750 800,000 125,000 1,108,750 1,764,875 1,050,000 1,050,000 985,500 135,000 253,125 1,373,625 428,750 2,800,000 375,000 3,603,750 6,027,375 Allowance only

Allowance only Allowance only Allowance only

SUBTOTALS FOR GENERAL ACTIVITIES

Construction Management etc.


5(d) 5(d) 5(d) 5(e) Site Surveillance Project Management 1 1 SUBTOTALS Client Representation item 1 SUBTOTALS FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ETC. TOTALS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION item item 5,000,000 1,200,000 120,000 5,000,000 1,200,000 6,200,000 120,000 6,320,000 103,732,500 10 10 10 500,000 120,000 620,000 12,000 632,000 632,000 5,500,000 1,320,000 6,820,000 132,000 6,952,000 104,364,500 25 25 25 25 25 35 1,375,000 330,000 1,705,000 33,000 1,738,000 36,185,625 6,875,000 200 weeks @ $25,000 1,650,000 240 weeks @ $5,000 8,525,000 165,000 8,690,000 140,550,125

6. PROJECT HANDOVER
6(a) (6b) Refurbish old route Operation/Mtce Mgt Plan Project Data & Performance item item item 1 1 1 SUBTOTALS 1 1 1,250,000 20,000 40,000 20,000 10,000 1,250,000 20,000 40,000 60,000 20,000 10,000 1,340,000 0 0 0 0 2,000 1,000 3,000 1,250,000 20,000 40,000 60,000 22,000 11,000 1,343,000 40 40 40 40 25 25 40 500,000 8,000 16,000 24,000 5,500 2,750 532,250 1,750,000 28,000 56,000 84,000 27,500 13,750 1,875,250

6(c) 6(d)

Project Management item Client Representation item TOTALS FOR PROJECT HANDOVER

10 10

GRAND TOTALS
Project Management Costs: % of Total Estimate: Client Representation Costs: % of Total Estimate:

120,965,000
10,035,850 5.99 458,150 0.27

1,558,650

122,523,650

37 44,943,663

167,467,313

Unit rate ($/km): 7,612,151 (22.0km long)

NOTES: 1. Quantities are strategic only. 2. Road pavement assumed as 150mm 5MPa subbase + 200mm dense grade asphalt base. 3. CC is the Corporate Contribution, set at 10%. 4. Earthworks balance will be rationalised during concept development.

MHSEPMO4.XLS - Est. Subsidiary Sht-B

24/04/2001

ESTIMATE SUMMARY SHEET - ESTIMATE C


Project: Project No.

MOORLAND to HERONS CK. - Inner East Bypass at Johns River & Outer West Bypass at Kew
66300 Estimate $000's (excluding contingency) 5,583 462 110 6,155 Date: February 2001 Contingency % Amount $000's Estimate Type: Estimate $000's (including contingency) 7,061 578 138 7,776 % of Total Cost Strategic (Highest Cost Scenario)

Item 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

Comments

26 25 25 26

1,478 116 28 1,621

Based on detailed estimate including Professional Services Contractor's price (Ove Arup & Partners). Extensive Geotechnical Investigation allowed prior 4.40 to Detailed Design and Implementation. Includes allowances for Geotech (fine tuning), Bridge Road Drainage & Pavement Design, Construction Staging, Visual Landscape & Urban Design, Environmental Risk & Value 2.21 Management, Community Consult, 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 6.80 (West).

2,530 385 88 3,003

30 30 30 30

759 116 26 901

3,289 501 114 3,904

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. Infrastructure Construction 5(a +b+c) Infrastructure See Below 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

5,000 1,725 275 11 7,011

90 25 25 25 71

4,500 431 69 3 5,003

9,500 2,156 344 14 12,014

1,020 44 11 1,075

100 40 25 97

1,020 18 3 1,040

2,040 62 14 2,115 1.20

Locations of major plant known.

103,205 6,820 132 110,157 1,750 60 22 11 1,843 129,244

35 25 25 35 40 40 25 25 40 37

36,476 1,705 33 38,214 700 24 6 3 732 47,511

139,681 8,525 165 148,371 2,450 84 28 14 2,575 176,754 1.46 83.94 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.)

TOTAL

Rounded Total $M

180

* Calculation Spreadsheet for Item 5 - Infrastructure Construction Components 5(a), 5(b) and 5(c) - Infrastructure
5. Infrastructure Construction
Item Estimate (excluding contingency) Contgy % Contingency Amount Estimate (including contingency)

Infrastructure
5(a) Base Infrastruture - Earthworks - Drainage - Pavements - Structures - Furniture/signs/delineation/fencing Sub Total 5(b) Environmental Works - Landscaping - Erosion and sed control inc wetlands - Fauna crossings/protection - Noise attenuation - Compensatory Habitat -Environmental Monitoring -Other Agency Costs Sub Total 5(c) General Activities - Site establishment & overheads - Property adjustments / fencing - Traffic Management Sub Total 16,960 6,750 41,300 18,500 3,435 86,945 2,000 3,600 1,000 4,200 500 500 50 11,850 750 1,230 2,430 4,410 103,205 36 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 40 35 44 41 35 6,035 2,363 14,455 6,475 1,202 30,530 700 1,260 350 1,470 175 175 18 4,148 300 431 1,068 1,798 36,476 22,995 9,113 55,755 24,975 4,637 117,475 2,700 4,860 1,350 5,670 675 675 68 15,998 1,050 1,661 3,498 6,208 139,681

TOTAL
Note: All figures are current $000's

Total Amount $M Project Management Client Representation 10.04 0.46

% of Total Est 5.7 0.3

MHSEPMO4.XLS - Est. Summary Sht-C

Page 1

24/04/2001

Reality Checks Cost $M/km Cost $M/lane*km Cost $/m3 earthworks Cost $/m2 Pavement Cost $/m2 Bridges 7.86 1.75 10.00 90.00 2,000.00

SUPPORTING ASSUMPTIONS - Estimate C - Inner East Bypass Johns River & Outer West Kew Length km Lane km Typical Cross Section: 3.5 Travel Lane 3.0/3.5 Turning/Auxillary Lanes Central Median 11 Outer Shoulder 2.5 Inner Shoulder 0.5 Interchanges: Kew (1 ea) 3km 3.5 Major Intersections: 6 of @ 700m extra lanes @ 3.5m 4km 3.5 Local Road/ Service Rds: Various locations, assume 2km 10 Major Structures (based on existing lengths, duplicate for new carriageway): Station St, Johns River (Unnamed Ck) 10 21 Thomas St, Johns River Overbridges 20 21 Johns River Nth (Unnamed Ck) 12 21 Stewarts River 230 10.5 Passionfruit Ck 10 10.5 Stoney Ck 15 21 Unnamed Ck 10 10.5 Rossglen Rail Overbridge 45 10.5 Camden Haven River 165 10.5 Camden Haven Floodplain 25 21 Kew Sth (Unnamed Ck) 10 21 Kew Interchange Overbridges 35 21 Kendall Road, Nth (Unnamed Ck) 15 21 Herons Ck Road Sth (Unnamed Ck) 10 21 Walkers Ck 10 10.5 Herons Ck Flood Channel 33 10.5 Herons Ck Bridge 35 21 Total 690 Main Pavements: New Carriageway Overlay Existing Earthworks: Cut Fill Select Fill Drainage other than major structures: 22.5km Length (km/m) Width m 22.5 101 Quantity (m /m )
2 3

$Rate

4 various 1 2 2 10,000 15,000 15,000 210 420 252 2,415 105 315 105 473 1,733 525 210 735 315 210 105 347 735 9,209 365,000 130,000 1,050,000 890,000 165,000 90 90 65

2,000 90 65 10 10 25 300,000

OTHER SUPPORTING DATA


Corporate Contributions: Project Development: Corporate Contribution has been set at 10% for this Strategic Estimate. (Refer Subsidiary Sheet). Represents 4.2% 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 2.1% 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. 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. Location of major plant is known from earlier investigations. Allowance is considered reasonable. 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. 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 carriageway with 200mm Asphalt. 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 Nation 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. Amount reflects the proximety of the proposed bypass routes to potentially impacted areas.

Investigation and design:

Typical Cross Section: Acquisition:

Utilities: Earthworks:

Drainage:

Pavement: Structures:

Fauna/ Compensatory Habitat: Noise Attenuation:

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)
CATEGORY ITEM UNIT QUANTITY (Note 1) RATE BASE TOTAL ($) 300,000 200,000 500,000 500,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 500,000 75,000 420,000 100,000 300,000 200,000 500,000 500,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 500,000 75,000 5,075,000 420,000 100,000 5,595,000 CORPORATE CONTRIBUTION % 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 ($) 30,000 20,000 50,000 50,000 100,000 200,000 50,000 7,500 507,500 42,000 10,000 559,500 ESTIMATE EXCLUDING CONTINGENCY ($) 330,000 220,000 550,000 550,000 1,100,000 2,200,000 550,000 82,500 5,582,500 462,000 110,000 6,154,500 CONTINGENCY % 0 25 25 25 30 30 25 25 26 25 25 26 ($) 0 55,000 137,500 137,500 330,000 660,000 137,500 20,625 1,478,125 115,500 27,500 1,621,125 ESTIMATE INCLUDING CONTINGENCY ($) 330,000 275,000 687,500 687,500 1,430,000 2,860,000 687,500 103,125 7,060,625 577,500 137,500 7,775,625 COMMENTS

1. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
1(a) 1(a) 1(a) 1(a) 1(a) 1(a) 1(a) 1(a) 1(a) 1(b) 1(c) Strategic Concept Development Survey/Photogrammetry Route Options/Selection Preliminary Engineering Design EIS/Community Geotechnical Inv.- Prelim. & Det. RTA Input including Rep's Report Other Agencies item item item item item item item item 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTALS 1 1 RTA Operations These elements make up ARUP services plus the detailed Geotech contract.

Project Management item Client Representation item TOTALS FOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

2. INVESTIGATION AND DESIGN


2(a) 2(a) 2(a) 2(a) 2(b) 2(c) Detailed design & docs Environmental monitoring Other Agencies item item item 1 1 1 SUBTOTALS 1 1 2,000,000 250,000 50,000 350,000 80,000 2,000,000 250,000 50,000 2,300,000 350,000 80,000 2,730,000 10 10 10 10 10 200,000 25,000 5,000 230,000 35,000 8,000 273,000 2,200,000 275,000 55,000 2,530,000 385,000 88,000 3,003,000 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 660,000 82,500 16,500 759,000 115,500 26,400 900,900 2,860,000 357,500 71,500 3,289,000 500,500 114,400 3,903,900

Project Management item Client Representation item TOTALS FOR INVESTIGATION AND DESIGN

3. PROPERTY ACQUISITION
3(a) 3(a) 3(a) 3(a) 3(a) 3(b) 3(b) 3(b) 3(b) 3(b) 3(b) 3(b) 3(c) 3(d) Residential Land/Houses Rural Land Commercial Land Golf Course Effects Acquisition Survey Plans and Registrations Technical Input Valuations Property Negotiations Legals & Fees item Ha m2 item item properties properties properties properties properties 1 50 0 1 SUBTOTALS 1 93 93 93 93 93 SUBTOTALS 1 1 3,000,000 20,000 1,000,000 150,000 1,000 500 1,000 3,750 10,000 250,000 10,000 3,000,000 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 5,000,000 150,000 93,000 46,500 93,000 348,750 930,000 1,661,250 250,000 10,000 6,921,250 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 9,300 4,650 0 34,875 0 63,825 25,000 1,000 89,825 3,000,000 100 1,000,000 100 0 1,000,000 50 5,000,000 90 165,000 25 102,300 25 51,150 25 93,000 25 383,625 25 930,000 25 1,725,075 25 275,000 25 11,000 25 7,011,075 71 3,000,000 1,000,000 0 500,000 4,500,000 41,250 25,575 12,788 23,250 95,906 232,500 431,269 68,750 2,750 5,002,769 6,000,000 Blocks < 1500m2 2,000,000 0 1,500,000 9,500,000 206,250 127,875 63,938 116,250 479,531 1,162,500 2,156,344 343,750 13,750 12,013,844

10 10 10 10

Project Management item Client Representation item TOTALS FOR PROPERTY ACQUISITION

10 10

4. PUBLIC UTILITY ADJUSTMENTS


4(a) 4(a) 4(a) 4(a) 4(a) 4(a) 4(a) 4(b) 4(c) Sewer Water - Various dia. Gas Electricity (crossings) Telstra Optus item m item ea item item 1 3,000 0 10 1 1 SUBTOTALS 1 1 20,000 100 30,000 200,000 200,000 40,000 10,000 20,000 300,000 0 300,000 200,000 200,000 1,020,000 40,000 10,000 1,070,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,000 1,000 5,000 20,000 300,000 0 300,000 200,000 200,000 1,020,000 44,000 11,000 1,075,000 100 100 100 100 100 100 40 25 97 20,000 300,000 0 300,000 200,000 200,000 1,020,000 17,600 2,750 1,040,350 40,000 600,000 0 600,000 400,000 400,000 2,040,000 61,600 13,750 2,115,350

Project Management item Client Representation item TOTALS FOR PUBLIC UTILITY ADJUSTMENTS

10 10

5. INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION 5(a)Base Infrastructure


Earthworks Earthworks Earthworks Earthworks Earthworks Earthworks Earthworks Earthworks Drainage Drainage Pavements Pavements Pavements Structures Structures Furniture etc. Furniture etc. Furniture etc. Furniture etc. Furniture etc. Furniture etc. Clearing Strip Topsoil Cut to Spoil Unsuitable Cut to Fill Select Fill Reinforced Soil walls General drainage Ha m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 item km 52 75,000 95,000 65,000 890,000 165,000 1 SUBTOTALS 22.5 SUBTOTALS 365,000 130,000 SUBTOTALS 9,250 SUBTOTALS 18,000 700 1 1 1 SUBTOTALS 5,000 10 10 15 10 25 1,000,000 300,000 260,000 750,000 950,000 975,000 8,900,000 4,125,000 1,000,000 16,960,000 6,750,000 6,750,000 32,850,000 8,450,000 41,300,000 18,500,000 18,500,000 2,160,000 175,000 400,000 350,000 350,000 3,435,000 86,945,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 260,000 750,000 950,000 975,000 8,900,000 4,125,000 1,000,000 16,960,000 6,750,000 6,750,000 32,850,000 8,450,000 41,300,000 18,500,000 18,500,000 2,160,000 175,000 400,000 350,000 350,000 3,435,000 86,945,000 40 40 35 40 35 35 35 36 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 104,000 300,000 332,500 390,000 3,115,000 1,443,750 350,000 6,035,250 2,362,500 2,362,500 11,497,500 2,957,500 14,455,000 6,475,000 6,475,000 756,000 61,250 140,000 122,500 122,500 1,202,250 30,530,000 364,000 1,050,000 1,282,500 1,365,000 12,015,000 5,568,750 1,350,000 22,995,250 9,112,500 200mm allowed

500mm layer allowed Adjacent Railway Includes culverts, pits,subsoils, K&G, GPTs.

Pavement Asphalt Overlay (200mm) Bridges & Major Structures (11) Barriers - g'rail/wire rope Type F barrier/Parapet Linemark/Painting/RPMs Signposting Street Lighting

m2 m2 m2 m m item item item

90 65 2,000 120 250 400,000 350,000 350,000

SUBTOTALS FOR BASE INFRASTRUCTURE

9,112,500 44,347,500 Refer Note 2 11,407,500 Overlay existing 55,755,000 24,975,000 24,975,000 2,916,000 236,250 Nominal Allowance 540,000 Allowance only 472,500 Allowance only 472,500 Allowance only 4,637,250 117,475,000

5(b) Environmental Works


Landscaping Temp. Erosion & Sed. Control Permanent Sed. Basins Water Quality/Spillage Ponds Fauna Crossings, Fencing, etc. Noise attenuation Compensatory Habitat Environmental Monitoring Other Agency Costs item item ea ea item m
2

item item item

1 SUBTOTALS 1 16 15 SUBTOTALS 1 SUBTOTALS 12,000 SUBTOTALS 1 SUBTOTALS 1 SUBTOTALS 1 SUBTOTALS

2,000,000 750,000 150,000 30,000 1,000,000 350 500,000 500,000 50,000

SUBTOTALS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL WORKS

2,000,000 2,000,000 750,000 2,400,000 450,000 3,600,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 50,000 50,000 11,850,000

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2,000,000 2,000,000 750,000 2,400,000 450,000 3,600,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 50,000 50,000 11,850,000

35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35

700,000 700,000 262,500 840,000 157,500 1,260,000 350,000 350,000 1,470,000 1,470,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 17,500 17,500 4,147,500

2,700,000 2,700,000 1,012,500 3,240,000 607,500 4,860,000 1,350,000 1,350,000 5,670,000 5,670,000 675,000 675,000 675,000 675,000 67,500 67,500 15,997,500

Allowance only Allowance only

Allowance incl. 5km fence Johns River & Kew Allowance only Allowance only Allowance only

5(c) General Activities


Site Establishment & Overheads Property Adjustments Demolition/relocation Fencing Temp Traffic Works Traffic Guidance Road Occupancy Charges item properties houses m m2 item item 1 SUBTOTALS 83 16 16,000 SUBTOTALS 3,000 1 1 SUBTOTALS 750,000 10,000 10,000 15 70 2,000,000 220,000 750,000 750,000 830,000 160,000 240,000 1,230,000 210,000 2,000,000 220,000 2,430,000 4,410,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 750,000 750,000 830,000 160,000 240,000 1,230,000 210,000 2,000,000 220,000 2,430,000 4,410,000 40 40 35 35 35 35 75 40 50 44 41 300,000 300,000 290,500 56,000 84,000 430,500 157,500 800,000 110,000 1,067,500 1,798,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 1,120,500 216,000 324,000 1,660,500 367,500 2,800,000 330,000 3,497,500 6,208,000 Allowance only

Allowance only Allowance only Allowance only

SUBTOTALS FOR GENERAL ACTIVITIES

Construction Management etc.


5(d) 5(d) 5(d) 5(e) 1 1 SUBTOTALS Client Representation item 1 SUBTOTALS FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ETC. TOTALS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION Site Surveillance Project Management item item 5,000,000 1,200,000 120,000 5,000,000 1,200,000 6,200,000 120,000 6,320,000 109,525,000 10 10 10 500,000 120,000 620,000 12,000 632,000 632,000 5,500,000 1,320,000 6,820,000 132,000 6,952,000 110,157,000 25 25 25 25 25 35 1,375,000 330,000 1,705,000 33,000 1,738,000 38,213,500 6,875,000 200 weeks @ $25,000 1,650,000 240 weeks @ $5,000 8,525,000 165,000 8,690,000 148,370,500

6. PROJECT HANDOVER
6(a) (6b) Refurbish old route Operation/Mtce Mgt Plan Project Data & Performance Project Management Client Representation TOTALS FOR PROJECT HANDOVER item item item item item 1 1 1 SUBTOTALS 1 1 1,750,000 20,000 40,000 20,000 10,000 1,750,000 20,000 40,000 60,000 20,000 10,000 1,840,000 0 0 0 0 2,000 1,000 3,000 1,750,000 20,000 40,000 60,000 22,000 11,000 1,843,000 40 40 40 40 25 25 40 700,000 8,000 16,000 24,000 5,500 2,750 732,250 2,450,000 28,000 56,000 84,000 27,500 13,750 2,575,250

6(c) 6(d)

10 10

GRAND TOTALS
Project Management Costs: % of Total Estimate: Client Representation Costs: % of Total Estimate:

127,681,250
10,035,850 5.68 458,150 0.26

1,562,325

129,243,575

37 47,510,894

176,754,469

Unit rate ($/km): 7,855,754 (22.5km long)

NOTES: 1. Quantities are strategic only. 2. Road pavement assumed as 150mm 5MPa subbase + 200mm dense grade asphalt base. 3. CC is the Corporate Contribution, set at 10%. 4. Earthworks balance will be rationalised during concept development.

MHSEPMO4.XLS - Est. Subsidiary Sheet-C

24/04/2001

Strategic Estimate of Cost

Upgrade from Moorland to Herons Creek

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 D

Strategic Estimate of Cost

Upgrade from Moorland to Herons Creek

Attachment E Summary of Environmental Issues.

Extract from the RTA Operations Strategic Concept Design Report.

Attachment E

Attachment E

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.

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

January 2000

Attachment E 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.

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

January 2000

Attachment E 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. 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. 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 EPAs 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.

Geotechnical Issues

Contaminated Soils

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

January 2000

Attachment E 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 Plannings 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.

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

January 2000

Attachment E 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. 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 projects 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. 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. 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.

Water Quality

Hydrology & Flooding

Visual

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

January 2000

Attachment E 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 EPAs 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 RTAs 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.
Pacific Highway Upgrade from Moorland to Herons Creek Strategic Concept Design Report (Extract) January 2000

Strategic Estimate of Cost

Upgrade from Moorland to Herons Creek

Attachment F Estimate Approval and Acceptance Form.

Attachment F

Estimate Approval and Acceptance (A)


PROJECT: PROJECT No.: ROAD No: LOCATION: REGION/ OFFICE: ESTIMATE OF COST: ESTIMATE STATUS: DATE: Preparation of Project Estimate MOORLAND TO HERONS CREEK 66300 SH10 36.6km to 58.5km North of Taree Pacific Highway Office $150M to $180M (TYPE) Strategic 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: Position: Chris Manser 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: Estimate Review 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: Estimate Concurrence On the basis of the information provided, concurrence is given to the estimate cost of $___________ Million ($2001). General Manager Project Management Office Date: Estimate Approval ($5 M $50 M) Estimate Concurrence (>$50 Million) 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. Approval not reqd ($5 M $50 M) Estimate Approval (>$50 Million) Director Client Services Date: I accept the (type) estimate cost of $____________ ($OT) and approve the Project Budget as $_____________ Million. Director Road Network Infrastructure Date:

Estimate Approval signature sheet

Strategic Estimate of Cost

Upgrade from Moorland to Herons Creek

Attachment G Verification Checklist.

Attachment G

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 Evidence ! - Yes x - No N/A Process: ! Geographical limits of the project set? Draft Project Development Brief & Request for Proposals ! Number of traffic lanes determined? -Draft Project Development Brief. -Prelim. Traffic Rpt ! Any intersections or interchanges? -Draft Project Development Brief. Preliminary Route Inv. ! Design cross section provided? Arup Drawings ! Pavement life determined? Request for Proposals ! Number, type and lengths of major structures Preliminary Route Inv. determined? ! Key assumptions listed? RTA Strategic Rpt ! Known risks listed? -RTA Strategic Rpt. -Draft Risk Mgt. Plan ! Information collected on Development, Design, RTA Strategic Property Acquisitions, Public Utilities and Concept Report Feb. Construction? 2000 ! Cost data collected? Ballina Bypass ! Differences between this project and comparable PMO Memo 22/2/01 project considered? ! Individual project item estimates prepared? Notes, Peer Rpt., etc ! Overall estimate compiled in standard format? PMO Memo 22/2/01 ! Contingency allowances added? PMO Memo 22/2/01 ! Standard Summary Sheet prepared? PMO Memo 22/2/01 ! Check project objectives and scope are acceptable to Request for Proposals Client? ! Reality Checks provided? PMO Memo 22/2/01 ! Sign off Checklist? PMO Memo 22/2/01 ! Peer Review undertaken? Chris Manser 20/2/01

File Ref/Remark

10/196.1594

-10/196.1594 -10/196.1593 -10/196.1594 -Arup 10/196.1593 80213/S01/SK015 & 17 10/196.1594 Arup 10/196.1593 97G1305 -97G1305 -10/196.1593 97G1305

10/23.1254 10/196.1593 10/196.1593;28 10/196.1593 10/196.1593 10/196.1593 10/196.1594 10/196.1593 10/196.1593 10/196.1593

The above activities have been satisfactorily completed


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

Strategic Estimate of Cost

Upgrade from Moorland to Herons Creek

Attachment H Comments on Peer Review.

Attachment H

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; 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 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.

2.

3.

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. 66300 Project Description Upgrade from Moorland to Herons Creek 65556 65167 68221 62185 3893 66301 64706 1846 4087 Sapphire to Woolgoolga Buladelah Bypass Bangalow to St. Helena Ballina Bypass Lyons Road to Englands Road Taree to Coopernook Coopernook Bypass Taree Bypass Raymond Terrace Bypass 66166 4521 Coolongolook to Wang Wauk Wang Wauk to Bundacree Creek Dec-98 13.9 21,000 1,511 na 23.4 49,200 2,103 na na May-00 Dec-98 29.6 16.8 58 39.14 53,000 60,000 125,800 77,700 1,791 3,571 2,169 1,985 na na 50.8 21.2 198,000 58,400 3,900 2,755 Revised Concept Estimate. Under construction. Heavy traffic conditions Concept Estimate. Concept Estimate. Floodplain and River crossings. Greenfields, staging was not ideal due to late decision to duplicate bypass. Under construction. Minimum work on existing carriageway na na 32.8 to 39.2 20.9 130,057 to 148,456 65,000 3,330 to 4,472 3,100 Revised Strategic Estimate Concept Estimate na 85 to 100 145,673 to 206,625 1,714 to 2,066 Strategic Estimate Date open na Lane km Total Project Cost ($,000) 147,020 to 176,754 Cost / Lane km ($,000) 1,500 to 1,750 Comment

98 to 101

Strategic Estimate

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

(b)

(c)

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 Geotechnical input 200hrs @ $150/hr Survey input 100hrs @ $150/hr Property input 100hrs @ $120/hr Environment input (J.O.D.) 250hrs @ $120/hr Engineering (R.D.) 150wks * 35hrs * 0.333 @ $130/hr Technical (A.J.S.) 150wks * 35hrs * 0.333 @ $85/hr Noise Issues TOTAL b) RTA Project Management (Costs high) 180wks * 35hrs * 0.333 @ $200/hr c) RTA Client Representation (Costs high) 180wks * 4hrs/wk @ $130/hr 3. a) Investigation and Design

30,000 30,000 15,000 12,000 30,000 230,000 150,000 10,000 $507,000

$420,000 $100,000

Detailed Design and Documentation (Costs high) Costs based on latest tender prices received by RTA Project Services (Low if anything!). See breakup attached. RTA Project Management (Costs high) 100wks * 35hrs * 0.5 @ $200/hr RTA Client Representation (Costs high) 100wks * 6hrs/wk @ $130/hr

b) c)
2

$350,000 $80,000

4. a)

Property Acquisition 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. RTA Project Management (Costs high) 65 properties @ 25hrs @ $150/hr Infrastructure Construction Earthworks (Cut and Fill allowed for twice) Items and Quantities revisited. Earthworks balance will be rationalised during concept development. Permanent Sed. Basins - (Costs high) Rates adopted from latest Ballina Bypass Estimated Costs (PMO approved) Fauna Fencing Provision in item for 5,000m @ $40/m RTA Project Management (Costs high) 240wks @ $5,000/wk RTA Client Representation (Costs high) 240wks * 4hrs/wk @ $130/hr $200,000

b)

$250,000

5. a)

b)

c) d) e)

$1,200,000 $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
CHAPTER0

P P E N D I X

5.4

VERIFICATION CHECKLIST

(This page intentionally left blank)

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 Evidence ! - Yes x - No N/A Process: ! Geographical limits of the project set? Draft Project Development Brief & Request for Proposals ! Number of traffic lanes determined? -Draft Project Development Brief. -Prelim. Traffic Rpt ! Any intersections or interchanges? -Draft Project Development Brief. Preliminary Route Inv. ! Design cross section provided? Arup Drawings ! Pavement life determined? Request for Proposals ! Number, type and lengths of major structures Preliminary Route Inv. determined? ! Key assumptions listed? RTA Strategic Rpt ! Known risks listed? -RTA Strategic Rpt. -Draft Risk Mgt. Plan ! Information collected on Development, Design, RTA Strategic Property Acquisitions, Public Utilities and Concept Report Feb. Construction? 2000 ! Cost data collected? Ballina Bypass ! Differences between this project and comparable PMO Memo 22/2/01 project considered? ! Individual project item estimates prepared? Notes, Peer Rpt., etc ! Overall estimate compiled in standard format? PMO Memo 22/2/01 ! Contingency allowances added? PMO Memo 22/2/01 ! Standard Summary Sheet prepared? PMO Memo 22/2/01 ! Check project objectives and scope are acceptable to Request for Proposals Client? ! Reality Checks provided? PMO Memo 22/2/01 ! Sign off Checklist? PMO Memo 22/2/01 ! Peer Review undertaken? Chris Manser 20/2/01

File Ref/Remark

10/196.1594

-10/196.1594 -10/196.1593 -10/196.1594 -Arup 10/196.1593 80213/S01/SK015 & 17 10/196.1594 Arup 10/196.1593 97G1305 -97G1305 -10/196.1593 97G1305

10/23.1254 10/196.1593 10/196.1593;28 10/196.1593 10/196.1593 10/196.1593 10/196.1594 10/196.1593 10/196.1593 10/196.1593

The above activities have been satisfactorily completed


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

(This page intentionally left blank)

A
CHAPTER 0

P P E N D I X

5.5

ESTIMATE APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE FORM

(This page intentionally left blank)

Estimate Approval and Acceptance (A)


PROJECT: PROJECT No.: ROAD No: LOCATION: REGION/ OFFICE: ESTIMATE OF COST: ESTIMATE STATUS: DATE: Preparation of Project Estimate MOORLAND TO HERONS CREEK 66300 SH10 36.6km to 58.5km North of Taree Pacific Highway Office $150M to $180M (TYPE) Strategic 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: Position: Chris Manser 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: Estimate Review 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: Estimate Concurrence On the basis of the information provided, concurrence is given to the estimate cost of $___________ Million ($2001). General Manager Project Management Office Date: Estimate Approval ($5 M $50 M) Estimate Concurrence (>$50 Million) 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. Approval not reqd ($5 M $50 M) Estimate Approval (>$50 Million) Director Client Services Date: I accept the (type) estimate cost of $____________ ($OT) and approve the Project Budget as $_____________ Million. Director Road Network Infrastructure Date:

Estimate Approval signature sheet

(This page intentionally left blank)

C
CHAPTER 0

H A P T E R

CONCEPT ESTIMATE

6.1 Summary
This chapter sets down the process for preparation of a Concept Estimate.

6.2 Overview
There are 3 key stages to the preparation of a Concept Estimate. These are: Preliminary Project Appreciation Stage; Estimate Establishment Stage; and Review and Approval Stage.

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

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

6.3 Preliminary Project Appreciation Stage


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

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Concept Estimate

6-1

6.3.1 Estimate Programme


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

6.3.2 Data Collection


The estimator must be provided with all relevant information. This will include: 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 6.1; 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.

6.3.3 Project Programme


A project development programme is to be prepared. This should indicate all significant activities and milestones, together with an approximate construction programme.

6.3.4 Quantities
Quantities are likely to be of an approximate nature and will be takenoff by the estimator.

6.3.5 Site Visit


A site visit should be made by anyone on the estimating team who is unfamiliar with the project.

6-2


Chapter 6 Issued December 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

6.3.6 Construction Methods


For significant items (such as earthworks or road pavement), the estimator is to determine the probable construction methods that will be adopted by the successful tenderer.

6.3.7 Pre-tender Construction Programme


From the methods assumed for significant items and historical productivities, a pre-tender construction programme is established. This will either confirm or replace the preliminary programme established earlier in the process, generally at the Strategic Estimate stage.

6.4 Estimate Establishment Stage


This is the stage where the project estimate is actually produced. Before computations commence, the estimator must have regard to RTAs requirements as to final presentation of the estimate, and the Work Breakdown Structure and Summary required. A sample work breakdown structure is given in Appendix 6.2. The following paragraphs indicate the activities that will be undertaken for a Unit Rates Estimate.

6.4.1 Understanding Historical Data


Historical 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).

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Concept Estimate

6-3

6.4.2 Adjusting Historical Data


Historical data is to be adjusted to bring it in line with the requirements of 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 Rates


New rates are to be computed for significant items (any item worth more than 5% of the total estimate). These may be based on an approximate first-principles estimate, quotations received from suppliers or a detailed assessment of historical data.

6.4.4 Cost Estimate


The estimate is calculated by multiplying the quantities by the unit rates deduced from first principles or historical data.

6.4.5 Contractors overheads, risk and margin


Generally the contractors overheads, risk and margin is included within the rates adopted earlier and no further adjustment is required. However, if a rate developed from first principles is used, it must have an addition for the contractors overheads, risk and margin.

6.4.6 Project Development Costs


Project Development costs are defined in Chapter 4. At the time of preparation of a Concept Estimate, these costs have not all been incurred and may be estimated from past experience.

6-4


Chapter 6 Issued December 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

6.4.7 Detailed Investigation and Design Costs


Detailed investigation and design costs are defined in Chapter 4. At the time of preparation of a Concept Estimate, these costs have not been incurred and may be estimated from past experience.

6.4.8 Property Acquisition Costs


Property acquisition costs are defined in Chapter 4. Property acquisition costs must be obtained from RTAs Property Section. Allowances must be made for known property adjustments.

6.4.9 Hand over Costs


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

6.4.10 Risk & Opportunity


Issues of risk and opportunity are considered in Chapter 3. Some of the available software for use in quantification of risk and opportunity is listed in Chapter 10.3.

It is mandatory that a risk analysis be prepared for Concept Cost estimates.

6.4.11 Contingency
Contingency is considered in Chapter 3. Appropriate contingencies must be added to each component of the project estimate. At concept estimate stage, contingencies in the range of 20% to 35% are appropriate. Contingencies outside this range must be justified.

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Concept Estimate

6-5

6.5 Review
Prior to commencement of the Concurrence, Approval and Acceptance procedure, the Project Manager should arrange a review of the estimate. This should follow a structured format and be documented.

6.6 Concurrence, Approval and Acceptance


All detailed estimates are the subject of concurrence, approval and acceptance as detailed in Chapter 2. The procedure is detailed in the following flowcharts.

6-6


Chapter 6 Issued December 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

PM S-PR-P-91: Procedure for Preparation, Concurrence, Approval and Acceptance of an Estim of Cost - Sheet 1 of 2 ate
PROCESS M AP

Start
* Plans * * Strategic - Street Plan or Topographical M showing ap alignment, M Utilities - visible/known ajor Concept - Longitudinal Section, Critical Sections. Typical Cross Sections (Cut/Fill), M Utilities. ost Detailed - Full set of plans including longitudinal section, cross sections, Utilities locations clearly marked.

Project M anager

Project M anager

List Key Assum ptions

For Strategic, Concept, Detailed Estim the following ate needs to be considered: * * * * * * * * * * * * * Lim of work, it Design Standards, Section Staging, No. of lanes, w idths (cross sections) Pavem ent, Newor rehab, Deviation, Property affect, Physical constraints, Environm ental constraints, Statutory im pedim ents, Geotech, Unusual features.

Project M anager/Client Representative

Scope

Project M anager

List Known Risks * For all types of estim use standard work ates breakdow structure in Table 3.1 of Project n M anagem Guidelines "Estim ent ating, Scope and Cost Control for Developm Projects". Refer to Clause ent 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 RTA Estim ating M anual. Consider known risks, staging, constructabliity, OHS&R, traffic m anagem and other issues ent

Project M anager

Prepare Estim ate in standard form at

Project M anager

Provide Reality Checks

Check w similar projects in comparable dollars ith * $/m3 earthwork * $/m2 Pavem ent * $/ lane km

Project M anager/Senior Project M anager

Sign Off (preparation)

Project M anager

Is Estim of Cost over $20M ate , $10Mfor Federally funded or for a com project ? plex

NO

Subm estim for approval: it ate Section M anager <$5m Branch/Regional M anager >5m Information to be submitted with the estim for a concurrence ate check: * Estimate Type * Plans * Scope * Key assum ptions * Known risks * Reality check

YES
Project M anager Subm estim for it ate concurrence of General M anager, PM O

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Concept Estimate

6-7

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

Project Manager to revise estimate / details

Estimator, PMO

* Log receipt of estimate * Is supporting information complete and amount of estimate acceptable ?

NO

YES
Estimator, PMO Sign Off (Concurrence Check)

General Manager, PMO

Sign Off (Concurrence)

Estimator, PMO

Return estimate and supporting information with GM, PMO Concurrence

Project Manager

Submit estimate for approval Section Manager <$5m Branch/Regional Manager $5m - $50m Director, Client Services > $50m

Client Representative

Is estimate consistent with project scoping and available funding ?

NO

YES
Client Representative Submit estimate to Client for acceptance

Client

*Estimate accepted * Project Budget set or revised

Appendix 6.3 contains a sample Concept Cost Estimate Report FINISH submitted for Concurrence, Acceptance and Approval.

Chapter 6 Issued December 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

6-8

Appendix 6.3 contains a sample concept estimate report, to be submitted for concurrence, approval and acceptance of the concept cost estimate. Appendix 6.4 contains the Verification Checklist, to be submitted for concurrence, approval and acceptance of the concept cost estimate. Appendix 6.5 contains the Estimate Approval and Acceptance form to be submitted for concurrence, approval and acceptance of the concept cost estimate.

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Concept Estimate

6-9

(This page intentionally left blank)

6 - 10


Chapter 6 Issued December 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

A
CHAPTER0

P P E N D I X

6.1

SAMPLE COST ESTIMATE SCOPE

(This page intentionally left blank)

Moree CBD Bypass Cost Estimate Scope

Table of Contents
1. 2. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................................3 THE PROJECT............................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 BYPASS DESIGN PHILOSOPHY ............................................................................................... 4

3.

BASE CASE ESTIMATE DETAILS...........................................................................................................................6


3.1 3.2 GENERAL.................................................................................................................................... 6 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

Rev: B S:\20000 series\20299\RTA Samples\Moree\Cost Estimate Scoping Report.DOC

Printed: 4 May 2001

Moree CBD Bypass Cost Estimate Scope


3.3.6 Earthworks...................................................................................................................... 13 3.3.7 Pavement ....................................................................................................................... 13 3.3.8 Drainage......................................................................................................................... 13 3.3.9 Structures ....................................................................................................................... 14 3.3.10 Property Adjustments and Acquisitions .......................................................................... 14 3.3.11 Public Utility Adjustments ............................................................................................... 15 3.3.12 Noise Mitigation .............................................................................................................. 15 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 3.4.9 Property Adjustments and Acquisitions .......................................................................... 18 3.4.10 Public Utility Adjustments ............................................................................................... 18 3.4.11 Noise Mitigation .............................................................................................................. 18 3.4.12 Flood Mitigation .............................................................................................................. 19 3.4.13 Urban Design and Landscaping ..................................................................................... 19 3.4.14 Miscellaneous................................................................................................................. 19

Rev: B S:\20000 series\20299\RTA Samples\Moree\Cost Estimate Scoping Report.DOC

Printed: 4 May 2001

Moree CBD Bypass Cost Estimate Scope

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.

Rev: B S:\20000 series\20299\RTA Samples\Moree\Cost Estimate Scoping Report.DOC

Printed: 4 May 2001

Moree CBD Bypass Cost Estimate Scope

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.

Rev: B S:\20000 series\20299\RTA Samples\Moree\Cost Estimate Scoping Report.DOC

Printed: 4 May 2001

Moree CBD Bypass Cost Estimate Scope

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.

Rev: B S:\20000 series\20299\RTA Samples\Moree\Cost Estimate Scoping Report.DOC

Printed: 4 May 2001

Moree CBD Bypass Cost Estimate Scope

3.
3.1

BASE CASE ESTIMATE DETAILS


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
Rev: B S:\20000 series\20299\RTA Samples\Moree\Cost Estimate Scoping Report.DOC Printed: 4 May 2001

Moree CBD Bypass Cost Estimate Scope

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 Urban South Urban North Rural North TOTAL Fill plus 10% Spoil 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 2090 CUT 8300 7600 16550 32450 FILL 0 12550 15050 27600 30360

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.
Rev: B S:\20000 series\20299\RTA Samples\Moree\Cost Estimate Scoping Report.DOC Printed: 4 May 2001

Moree CBD Bypass Cost Estimate Scope

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 3.2.1

URBAN SECTION SOUTH - NEWELL HIGHWAY (SOUTH) TO THE SPA BATHS 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.

Rev: B S:\20000 series\20299\RTA Samples\Moree\Cost Estimate Scoping Report.DOC

Printed: 4 May 2001

Moree CBD Bypass Cost Estimate Scope

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.

Rev: B S:\20000 series\20299\RTA Samples\Moree\Cost Estimate Scoping Report.DOC

Printed: 4 May 2001

Moree CBD Bypass Cost Estimate Scope

3.2.7

Pavement

Fluctuations in heavy vehicle traffic arising from Morees 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 Morees 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 3.2.10

Structures Property Adjustments and Acquisitions

No major structures occur within this section.

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, quality/spillage control pond Lot 560 DP 751780 HM QE 2 (partial) water

Gosport Street Lot 1 DP 559298 Moree Shire Council upgrade (partial) Newell Highway intersection

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
Printed: 4 May 2001

Rev: B S:\20000 series\20299\RTA Samples\Moree\Cost Estimate Scoping Report.DOC

Moree CBD Bypass Cost Estimate Scope

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.

Rev: B S:\20000 series\20299\RTA Samples\Moree\Cost Estimate Scoping Report.DOC

Printed: 4 May 2001

Moree CBD Bypass Cost Estimate Scope

3.3 3.3.1

URBAN SECTION NORTH JONES AVENUE TO MEHI RIVER


(Ch 1020 to Ch 1920)

Extent of work
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

The extent of work within this urban north section includes:

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.

Rev: B S:\20000 series\20299\RTA Samples\Moree\Cost Estimate Scoping Report.DOC

Printed: 4 May 2001

Moree CBD Bypass Cost Estimate Scope

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.

Rev: B S:\20000 series\20299\RTA Samples\Moree\Cost Estimate Scoping Report.DOC

Printed: 4 May 2001

Moree CBD Bypass Cost Estimate Scope

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 3.3.10

Structures Property Adjustments and Acquisitions

No major structures occur within this section.

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

Rev: B S:\20000 series\20299\RTA Samples\Moree\Cost Estimate Scoping Report.DOC

Printed: 4 May 2001

Moree CBD Bypass Cost Estimate Scope

Lot 5 DP 845620 SRA - rail corridor Lot 4 DP 845620 SRA - rail corridor Lot 3 DP 829660 SRA - rail corridor Woolstore siding Lot 3 DP 845620 SRA - residential lease Mrs Samsons house Lot 2 DP 845620 SRA - rail corridor Lot 1 DP 845620 SRA - rail corridor

Credits for property resale have been allowed in the estimate for: Lot 3 DP 829660 SRA - rail corridor Woolstore siding

Mrs Samsons (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 Samsons 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.

Rev: B S:\20000 series\20299\RTA Samples\Moree\Cost Estimate Scoping Report.DOC

Printed: 4 May 2001

Moree CBD Bypass Cost Estimate Scope

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 Samsons 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.

Rev: B S:\20000 series\20299\RTA Samples\Moree\Cost Estimate Scoping Report.DOC

Printed: 4 May 2001

Moree CBD Bypass Cost Estimate Scope

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 semirigid 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.

Rev: B S:\20000 series\20299\RTA Samples\Moree\Cost Estimate Scoping Report.DOC

Printed: 4 May 2001

Moree CBD Bypass Cost Estimate Scope

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.

Rev: B S:\20000 series\20299\RTA Samples\Moree\Cost Estimate Scoping Report.DOC

Printed: 4 May 2001

Moree CBD Bypass Cost Estimate Scope

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).

Rev: B S:\20000 series\20299\RTA Samples\Moree\Cost Estimate Scoping Report.DOC

Printed: 4 May 2001

(This page intentionally left blank)

A
CHAPTER0

P P E N D I X

6.2

SAMPLE WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE

(This page intentionally left blank)

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 - Advice from other Government Agencies - Prepare EIS by Maunsells -Acid Soil Investigation -UNSW - Technical Input by Project Team - Acid Soil Peer Review-UTS - Concept Review by RTA Operations - Prepare Representations Report, Connell Wagner - Project Management by PHO - Project Estimating by PMO - Client Representation by PHO - Geotechnical Investigation by ETEC - Hydraulics/Hydrology by Water Pty/Ltd - Koala Monitoring -Aus. Museum - Advice from other Government Agencies - Public Utility Search by Seek - Roadworks Design, RTA Operations - Bridgeworks Design by Maunsells - Design Review by Kinhills - Technical Input by Project Team - Prepare Project EMP by Acacia - Prepare Contract Documents, Northern Region - Road Safety Audits by Northern Region - Prepare detailed estimate by Northern Region - Project Management by Northern Region - Client Representation by PHO - Property Valuations by VG - Cadastral Survey by Pointed Pty Ltd - Purchase A J King Property - Purchase Betters Property - Demolition of Jack Property by Acme - Project Management by Hunter Region - Client Representation by PHO

C C C C C C C C PC PC MC D D D D D D D D D D D D PD PD MD V V A A A PA MA U U U PU MU

EC ACQUT EC EC RTAD EC RTAB EC RTAB RTAD RTAD EC EC EC ACQUT EC RTAB EC EC RTAD EC RTAD RTAD RTAD RTAD RTAD ACQUT EC ACQUT ACQUT EC RTAD RTAD ACQUT ACQUT ACQUT RTAB RTAD

2. Detailed Investigation and Design

3. Property Acquisition

4. Public Utility Adjustments - Telstra Adjustments - Electricity by Energy Australia - Water/Sewerage by Byron Council - Project Management by PMS - Client Representation by PHO

Job

Subjobs

Subjob Component Code I I I I PI PS MI I I I PI PI PS PS MI MI O H H PH MH

Service Competition Category EC RTAB RTAD EC RTAD EC RTAD EC RTAD EC RTAB RTAB RTAB EC RTAD RTAD LGF RTAB EC RTAB RTAD

5. Bridge Construction

- Y River Bridge by Fernandes - 2 Creek Bridge by RTA Hunter Region - Technical Advice, Bridge Branch - Review of EMP by Acacia - Project Management by PMS - Site management & Surveillance by PED - Client Representation by PHO - Roadworks by Big Contractor Pty Ltd - Technical Advice - Pavement Branch - Demolition of Jack property by Acme - Systems Auditing by Project Team - Project Management by PMS - Construction Surveillance by PMS - Site management & Surveillance by PED - Client Representation by PHO - Decision Report Audit by PHO - Refurbish Old Network by Council - Project Data & Reporting by CMP - Prepare Operations EMP by Acacia - Project Management by PMS - Client Representation by PHO

6. Roadwork Construction

7. Handover

A
CHAPTER0

P P E N D I X

6.3

SAMPLE CONCEPT ESTIMATE REPORT

(This page intentionally left blank)

RTA - MEMORANDUM WESTERN REGION

TO: The General Manager Project Management Office BLACKTOWN

FROM: P Standen Project Manager 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. 2. 3. 4. High speed connection at northern end High speed connection at southern end Extension of project at southern end (Bullus Drive/Amaroo Drive Upgrade) 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 ($) (excluding contingency) Contingency Amount ($) Estimate ($) (including contingency) % of Total Estimate Comments/Assumptions

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

Project Development Route/Concept/EIS/Reps Report Project Management Services Client Representation Sub total

$1,000,000.00 $200,000.00 $20,000.00 $1,220,000.00

28% 28% 28% 28.0%

$280,000.00 $56,000.00 $5,600.00 $341,600.00

$1,280,000.00 $256,000.00 $25,600.00 $1,561,600.00

5.2%

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3

Investigation and Design Investigation amd Design Project Management Services Client Representation Sub total

$350,000.00 $80,000.00 $8,000.00 $438,000.00

28.0% 28.0% 28.0% 28.0%

$98,000.00 $22,400.00 $2,240.00 $122,640.00

$448,000.00 $102,400.00 $10,240.00 $560,640.00

1.9%

3.0 Property Acquisitions 3.1 Professional Services for property 3.2 Property Acquisition Costs 3.3 Property Resale Credits 3.4 Project Management Services 3.5 Client Representation Sub total 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Public Utility Adjustments Adjust Utilities Project Management Services Client Representation Sub total 5.0 Construction 5.1 Infrastructure - General 5.2 Infrastructure - Environmental 5.3 Infrastructure - Noise Mitigation 5.4 Infrastructure - Flood Mitigation 5.5 Infrastructure - Earthworks 5.6 Infrastructure - Drainage 5.7 Infrastructure - Pavement 5.8 Infrastructure - Structures 5.9 Infrastructure - Local Roads 5.10 Infrastructure - Urban Design & Landscaping 5.11 Infrastructure - Miscellaneous 5.12 Infrastructure - Site Management 5.13 Project Management Services 5.14 Client Representation Sub total 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Handover Refurbish works Project Data and Performance Project Management Services Client Representation Sub total TOTAL CONCEPT ESTIMATE

$50,000.00 $2,345,000.00 -$331,500.00 $50,000.00 $5,000.00 $2,118,500.00

28.0% 25.0% -15.0% 28.0% 28.0% 31.4%

$14,000.00 $586,250.00 $49,725.00 $14,000.00 $1,400.00 $665,375.00

$64,000.00 $2,931,250.00 -$281,775.00 $64,000.00 $6,400.00 $2,783,875.00

9.4%

$1,222,440.98 $122,244.10 $12,224.41 $1,356,909.48

35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0%

$427,854.34 $42,785.43 $4,278.54 $474,918.32

$1,650,295.32 $165,029.53 $16,502.95 $1,831,827.80

6.2%

$635,465.00 $258,125.00 $686,400.00 $20,000.00 $913,681.00 $1,555,290.00 $5,513,860.00 $4,292,334.01 $674,000.00 $394,950.00 $2,180,763.50 $1,027,492.11 $342,497.37 $34,249.74 $18,529,107.72

30.0% 24.9% 21.6% 30.0% 25.2% 25.0% 20.1% 21.6% 28.9% 19.8% 21.2% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 22.4%

$190,639.50 $64,221.25 $148,580.00 $6,000.00 $229,992.50 $388,222.50 $1,106,195.00 $926,459.75 $195,100.00 $78,140.00 $462,949.10 $256,873.03 $85,624.34 $8,562.43 $4,147,559.41

$826,104.50 $322,346.25 $834,980.00 $26,000.00 $1,143,673.50 $1,943,512.50 $6,620,055.00 $5,218,793.76 $869,100.00 $473,090.00 $2,643,712.60 $1,284,365.14 $428,121.71 $42,812.17 $22,676,667.13

76.2%

$173,000.00 $100,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $275,000.00 $23,937,517.21

25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 24.3%

$43,250.00 $25,000.00 $250.00 $250.00 $68,750.00 $5,820,842.72

$216,250.00 $125,000.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $343,750.00 $29,758,359.93

1.2% 100.0%

INDICATIVE COST ESTIMATE ($ million)


PROJECT REALITY CHECK Infrastructure Construction Infrastructure Length of project Length of lane kilometres Pavement area Area of structures - bridges - major culverts Earthworks (Cut to fill, cut to spoil & imported fill) Earthworks (Select) Earthworks (Unsuitable) Unit Quantity Rates (cost per unit) $7.91 $2.68 $128.41 $2,400.00 $1,129.57 $9.10 $28.82 $43.75 Comment

$29.76

km km m2 m2 m2 m3 m3 m3

3.76 11.11 51554 1410 1082 35500 17820.00 3000

Project cost/km Project cost/lane km Pavement cost /m2 pavement Bridge cost /m2 deck area (Mehi River bridge) Culvert cost/m2 deck area (creek crossings) Earthwork cost/m3 earthworks

Moree_PREFERr2.XLS Sheet: BASE CASE COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY

24/04/2001 1 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)
Item Estimate ($) (excluding contingency) Contingency Amount ($) Estimate ($) (including contingency) % of Total Estimate Comments/Assumptions

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

Project Development Route/Concept/EIS/Reps Report Project Management Services Client Representation Sub total

$333,333.33 $66,666.67 $6,666.67 $406,666.67

28% 28% 28% 28.0%

$93,333.33 $18,666.67 $1,866.67 $113,866.67

$426,666.67 $85,333.33 $8,533.33 $520,533.33

4.4%

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3

Investigation and Design Investigation amd Design Project Management Services Client Representation Sub total

$116,666.67 $26,666.67 $2,666.67 $146,000.00

28% 28% 28% 28.0%

$32,666.67 $7,466.67 $746.67 $40,880.00

$149,333.33 $34,133.33 $3,413.33 $186,880.00

1.6%

3.0 Property Acquisitions 3.1 Professional Services for property 3.2 Property Acquisition Costs 3.3 Property Resale Credits 3.4 Project Management Services 3.5 Client Representation Sub total 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Public Utility Adjustments Adjust Utilities Project Management Services Client Representation Sub total 5.0 Construction 5.1 Infrastructure - General 5.2 Infrastructure - Environmental 5.3 Infrastructure - Noise Mitigation 5.4 Infrastructure - Flood Mitigation 5.5 Infrastructure - Earthworks 5.6 Infrastructure - Drainage 5.7 Infrastructure - Pavement 5.8 Infrastructure - Structures 5.9 Infrastructure - Local Roads 5.10 Infrastructure - Urban Design & Landscaping 5.11 Infrastructure - Miscellaneous 5.12 Infrastructure - Site Management 5.13 Project Management Services 5.14 Client Representation Sub total 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Handover Existing signs Project Data and Performance Project Management Services Client Representation Sub total TOTAL CONCEPT ESTIMATE

$16,666.67 $525,000.00 -$311,500.00 $16,666.67 $1,666.67 $248,500.00

28% 25.0% -15.0% 28% 28% 75.6%

$4,666.67 $131,250.00 $46,725.00 $4,666.67 $466.67 $187,775.00

$21,333.33 $656,250.00 -$264,775.00 $21,333.33 $2,133.33 $436,275.00

3.7%

$267,000.48 $26,700.05 $2,670.00 $296,370.53

35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0%

$93,450.17 $9,345.02 $934.50 $103,729.68

$360,450.64 $36,045.06 $3,604.51 $400,100.21

3.4%

$199,198.33 $83,946.67 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $407,520.00 $179,500.00 $1,969,420.00 $3,910,230.00 $400,000.00 $70,450.00 $558,795.00 $468,843.60 $156,281.20 $15,628.12 $8,454,812.92

30.0% 24.6% 20.0% 30.0% 25.3% 25.0% 20.1% 21.3% 38.5% 20.0% 22.0% 25.0% 25% 25% 22.6%

$59,759.50 $20,676.67 $3,000.00 $6,000.00 $102,978.50 $44,875.00 $395,027.00 $830,933.75 $154,000.00 $14,090.00 $123,209.00 $117,210.90 $39,070.30 $3,907.03 $1,914,737.65

$258,957.83 $104,623.33 $18,000.00 $26,000.00 $510,498.50 $224,375.00 $2,364,447.00 $4,741,163.75 $554,000.00 $84,540.00 $682,004.00 $586,054.50 $195,351.50 $19,535.15 $10,369,550.57

87.0%

$5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 $9,557,350.11

25.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 25.0% 24.7%

$1,250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,250.00 $2,362,239.00

$6,250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,250.00 $11,919,589.11

0.1% 100.0%

INDICATIVE COST ESTIMATE ($ million)


PROJECT REALITY CHECK Infrastrucutre construction Unit Quantity Rates (cost per unit) Comment

$11.92

Rural (Mehi River to Newell Highway north) Length of project Length of lane kilomentres Pavement Area of structures (bridge) - bridges - major culverts Earthworks (cut to fill, cut to spoil, & imported fill) Earthworks (Select) Earthworks (Unsuitable)

km km m2 m2 m2 m3 m3 m3

1.84 4.68 17943 1410 1082 18900 7680 1000

$6.48 $2.55 $131.78 $2,400.00 $1,129.57 $9.26 $29.97 $43.75

Project cost/km Project cost/lane km Pavement cost /m2 pavement Bridge cost /m2 deck area (Mehi River bridge) Culvert cost/m2 deck area (creek crossings) Earthwork cost/m3 earthworks

Moree_PREFERr2.XLS Sheet: North Rural Sect Summary

24/04/2001 1 of 1

MOREE BYPASS
INDICATIVE COST ESTIMATE BASE CASE OPTION (Gosport Street Preferred Option) - NORTHERN RURAL SECTION (Ch 1920 to Ch 3760) Extent: This section extends from the southern side of the Mehi River to Newell Highway north and 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.
QUANTITIES AND RATES
Item No. Description of Work Quantity Unit Rate $ 3.0 3.2 a) PROPERTY ACQUISITION PROPERTY ACQUISITION COSTS Steel Bridge Camp Camp site 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 Amount % $ Contingency Amount Total

item

10,000.00

10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 225,000.00 220,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 30,000.00 515,000.00 525,000.00 -157,500.00 -154,000.00 -311,500.00

25.0%

2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 56,250.00 55,000.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 7,500.00 128,750.00 131,250.00 23625.00 23100.00 46,725.00

12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 281,250.00 275,000.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 37,500.00 643,750.00 656,250.00 -133,875.00 -130,900.00 -264,775.00

a) b) c) d) e) f) g)

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

item item item item item item item

10,000.00 10,000.00 225,000.00 220,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 30,000.00

25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% -15.0% -15.0% -15.0%

3.3 a) b)

PROPERTY RESALE CREDITS Hifields Lot 3 DP 540123 - rural property Long lands Lot 1 DP 535838 - rural property

1 1

item item

-157500.00 -154,000.00

4.0 4.1 4.1.1 a) b) c) 4.1.2 a) b) c) d) 4.1.3 4.1.3.1 a) b) c) 4.1.3.2 a) b) c) 4.1.3.3 a) 4.1.4 a) b) c)

PUBLIC UTILITY ADJUSTMENTS ADJUST UTILITIES Sewer Adjust sewer manhole to match new surface. Concrete encase 150 mm dia sewer main. relocate 150 mm main Water Adjust stop valve to match new surface Adjust hydrant to match new surface Relocate house service Relocate 150mm main Telstra Cables & conduits Protection - 2 x P100 Relocate - Flexible Conduit 2xP100 Adjust Manhole Distribution Adjust - Flexible Cable P50 Adjust - Junction Pits (medium size) Adjust Pillar Supervision Allow % of Telstra Adjustments Electrical Relocate & adjust supply poles with LV Relocate & adjust supply poles with HV Relocate u/g supply conduits & cables

0 0 0

no. m m

425.00 365.00 310.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,125.00 1,125.00 6,000.00 20,100.00 28,350.00

35.0% 35.0% 35.0%

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 393.75 393.75 2100.00 7035.00 9,922.50

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,518.75 1,518.75 8,100.00 27,135.00 38,272.50

3 3 120 100

no. no. lin m lin m

375.00 375.00 50.00 201.00

35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0%

40 300 2

lin m lin m no.

150.00 50.00 5000.00

6,000.00 15,000.00 10,000.00 31,000.00 250.00 660.00 1,000.00 1,910.00 740.48 740.48 40,000.00 150,000.00 15,000.00 205,000.00 267,000.48

35.0% 35.0% 35.0%

2100.00 5250.00 3500.00 10,850.00 87.50 231.00 350.00 668.50 259.17 259.17 14000.00 52500.00 5250.00 71,750.00 93,450.17

8,100.00 20,250.00 13,500.00 41,850.00 337.50 891.00 1,350.00 2,578.50 999.64 999.64 54,000.00 202,500.00 20,250.00 276,750.00 360,450.64

10 1 1

lin m each Item

25.00 660.00 1000.00

35.0% 35.0% 35.0%

15%

item

4936.50

35.0%

4 10 60

each each lin m

10000.00 15000.00 250.00

35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0%

5.0 5.1 5.1.1 a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) l) m) n) o) p)

CONSTRUCTION INFRASTRUCTURE - GENERAL Mobilisation & establishment (equally distributed over the 3 road sections) Establish site office plumber electrician phone site earthworks fence site offices - hire toilet - hire sewer pump out security phone fax electrical stationary computer rubbish removal

0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

item item item item item item week week week week week week week week week week

3,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 500.00 2,000.00 9,600.00 1,000.00 200.00 450.00 500.00 200.00 35.00 150.00 30.00 25.00 80.00

1,000.00 666.67 666.67 166.67 666.67 3,200.00 25,000.00 5,000.00 11,250.00 12,500.00 5,000.00 875.00 3,750.00 750.00 625.00 2,000.00 73,116.67 6,666.67 6666.67

30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0%

300.00 200.00 200.00 50.00 200.00 960.00 7500.00 1500.00 3375.00 3750.00 1500.00 262.50 1125.00 225.00 187.50 600.00 21,935.00 2000.00 2000.00

1,300.00 866.67 866.67 216.67 866.67 4,160.00 32,500.00 6,500.00 14,625.00 16,250.00 6,500.00 1,137.50 4,875.00 975.00 812.50 2,600.00 95,051.67 8,666.67 8666.67

5.1.2

Community liaison (equally distributed over the 3 road sections)

0.33

item

20,000.00

30.0%

5.1.3

Management Plans - environmental, earthworks, traffic, OH&S, QA (15 no. for project distributed over the 3 road sections)

each

10,000.00

50,000.00 50000.00

30.0%

15000.00 15000.00

65,000.00 65000.00

5.1.4 a)

Traffic Control Control

0.33

item

15,000.00

5,000.00

30.0%

1500.00

6,500.00

Moree_PREFERr2.XLS Sheet: North Rural Sect Detail Est

24/04/2001 1 of 5

b) c) d) e) f)

Temporary signs Install temporary barriers Remove temporary barriers Mesh fence Provide temporary access at driveways

52 230 230 1040 8

each lin m lin m lin m each

180.00 180.00 6.50 4.00 1,000.00

9,360.00 41,400.00 1,495.00 4,160.00 8,000.00 69,415.00 199,198.33

30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0%

2808.00 12420.00 448.50 1248.00 2400.00 20,824.50 59,759.50

12,168.00 53,820.00 1,943.50 5,408.00 10,400.00 90,239.50 258,957.83

5.2 5.2.1 5.2.1.1 a) b) c) d) e) f) e) 5.2.1.2 a) b) c) d) e) f) g) 5.2.2 5.2.2.1 a) b) c) 5.2.2.2 a) 5.2.2.3 a) b) c) 5.2.2.4 a) b) c) d) 5.2.3 a) b) c)

INFRASTRUCTURE - ENVIRONMENTAL Environmental protection Building condition inspections Gwydirfield Lot 1 DP 575425 - rural property - house fronts Gwydirfield Rd Torelliana Lot 1 DP 565380 - rural property Part Katanning Lot 4 DP 869679 - rural property Part Katanning Lot 3 DP 869679 - rural property Racecourse TSR Stormont Lot 5 DP 864063 - rural Newell Hwy, Site monitoring (distributed over the 3 road sections) Noise Ground vibration Air pollution Water quality Vegetation protection Fauna inspections Heritage - aboriginal Erosion & sedimentation control Temporary sediment control basins Earthworks for sedimentation control basins Inlets, spillways for sedimentation control basins Removal of sedimentation control structures Treat contaminated water & discharge water sediment control structures Other temporary works Installation & removal temporary drains and dykes installation & removal Silt fencing Hay bale silt traps Maintenance Temporary sedimentation control basins Temporary drains Silt fencing Hay bale silt traps Permanent Sediment/Chemical Spillage Control Basins Earthworks for sedimentation control basins Inlets, spillways for sedimentation control basins Cleaning of sedimentation control structures

2 2 2 2 2 2 4

each each each each each each each

300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 1,000.00 300.00 300.00

600.00 600.00 600.00 600.00 2,000.00 600.00 1,200.00 6,200.00

20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0%

120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 400.00 120.00 240.00 1,240.00

720.00 720.00 720.00 720.00 2,400.00 720.00 1,440.00 7,440.00

0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 1 0.67

item item item item item item item

13,500.00 13,500.00 2,500.00 5,000.00 4,000.00 8,000.00 5,000.00

4,500.00 4,500.00 833.33 1,666.67 1,333.33 8,000.00 3,333.33 24,166.67

25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0%

1125.00 1125.00 208.33 416.67 333.33 2000.00 833.33 6,041.67

5,625.00 5,625.00 1,041.67 2,083.33 1,666.67 10,000.00 4,166.67 30,208.33

80 2 2

cu m each item

30.00 300.00 150.00

2,400.00 600.00 300.00 3,300.00 800.00 800.00 3,000.00 2,450.00 1,200.00 6,650.00 630.00 800.00 800.00 5,000.00 7,230.00 18,000.00 9,600.00 8,000.00 35,600.00 83,946.67

25.0% 25.0% 25.0%

600.00 150.00 75.00 825.00 200.00 200.00 750.00 612.50 300.00 1,662.50 157.50 200.00 200.00 1250.00 1,807.50 4500.00 2400.00 2000.00 8,900.00 20,676.67

3,000.00 750.00 375.00 4,125.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 3,750.00 3,062.50 1,500.00 8,312.50 787.50 1,000.00 1,000.00 6,250.00 9,037.50 22,500.00 12,000.00 10,000.00 44,500.00 104,623.33

item

400.00

25.0%

500 350 40

lin m lin m each

6.00 7.00 30.00

25.0% 25.0% 25.0%

3 2 2 50

each item item each

210.00 400.00 400.00 100.00

25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0%

400 8 8

cu m item item

45.00 1200.00 1,000.00

25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 24.6%

5.3 5.3.1 a) b) c) 5.4 5.4.1 5.4.1.1 a) 5.4.1.2 a) 5.4.1.3 a)

INFRASTRUCTURE - NOISE MITIGATION Properties Gwydirfield Lot 1 DP 575425 - rural property (thick glazing, aircon) Torelliana Lot 1 DP 565380 - rural property (thick glazing) Part Katanning Lot 4 DP 869679 - rural property (thick glazing) INFRASTRUCTURE - FLOOD MITIGATION Properties Gwydirfield Lot 1 DP 575425 - rural property Install earth bund Torelliana Lot 1 DP 565380 - rural property Install earth bund Part Katanning Lot 4 DP 869679 - rural property Install earth bund

1 0 0

item item item

15,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00

15,000.00 0.00 0.00 15,000.00

20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0%

3000.00 0.00 0.00 3,000.00

18,000.00 0.00 0.00 18,000.00

item

20,000.00

20,000.00 20,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20,000.00

30.0%

6000.00 6,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,000.00

26,000.00 26,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26,000.00

item

30,000.00

30.0%

item

30,000.00

30.0% 30.0%

5.5 5.5.1 a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) j) j) k) 5.5.2 a) 5.5.3 a) b) c) d) e) 5.5.4 a) b) 5.5.5 a) b) 5.5.6

INFRASTRUCTURE - EARTHWORKS Grubbing & clearing Tree removal Wood chip mulching to stockpile Disused pipe systems Disused watermain Disused sewer Abandoned footpath Salvage, haul, stockpile abandoned road pavement: Gwydirfield Road Strip & dispose abandoned road surface course Abandoned pits Abandoned headwall Abandoned kerb Topsoil Strip, haul, stockpile topsoil for future use General earthworks cut to fill stockpile to fill (woolstore to north of river) cut to spoil off site Import fill Unsuitable ground material (excavate, haul, dispose & import, place select fill) Select material Select material in select material zone (stripped road base from stockpile) Select material in select material zone (imported) Fabric Geotextile supply and installation (subgrade, sub-pavement drains) Geogrid supply and installation (PQ) Dewatering

20 10 0 0 0 0 450 3000 0 0 0

each cu m lin m lin m lin m sq m cu m sq m each each lin m

200.00 8.00 50.00 40.00 40.00 15.00 6.10 6.10 2.50 1,000.00 500.00

4,000.00 80.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,745.00 18,300.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25,125.00 21,970.00 21,970.00 99,300.00 0.00 18,750.00 22,000.00 35,000.00 175,050.00 3,375.00 180,750.00 184,125.00 0.00 750.00 750.00

25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0%

1000.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 686.25 4575.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,281.25 6591.00 6,591.00 24825.00 0.00 4687.50 5500.00 8750.00 43,762.50 843.75 45187.50 46,031.25 0.00 187.50 187.50

5,000.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,431.25 22,875.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31,406.25 28,561.00 28,561.00 124,125.00 0.00 23,437.50 27,500.00 43,750.00 218,812.50 4,218.75 225,937.50 230,156.25 0.00 937.50 937.50

4394

cu m

5.00

30.0%

16550 0 1250 1100 1000 19900 450 7230

cu m cu m cu m cu m cu m

6.00 15.00 15.00 20.00 35.00

25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0%

cu m cu m

7.50 25.00

25.0% 25.0%

0 100

sq m sq m

4.50 7.50

25.0% 25.0%

Moree_PREFERr2.XLS Sheet: North Rural Sect Detail Est

24/04/2001 2 of 5

a)

Dewatering

item

500.00

500.00 500.00 407,520.00

25.0% 25.3%

125.00 125.00 102,978.50

625.00 625.00 510,498.50

5.6 5.6.1 a) b) c) 5.6.2 a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) 5.6.3 a) b) c) d) e) f) 5.6.4 a) b) c) d) 5.6.5 5.6.5.1 a) b) c) 5.6.5.2 a) b) c) d) 5.6.6 a) 5.6.7 a)

INFRASTRUCTURE - DRAINAGE Excavation Excavation for stormwater drainage structures Excavation for open drains Unsuitable ground excavation and replacement Precast reinforced concrete pipes 375 diam RRJ Cl 3 450 diam RRJ Cl 3 525 diam RRJ Cl 3 600 diam RRJ Cl 3 675 diam RRJ Cl 3 750 diam RRJ Cl 3 900 diam RRJ Cl 3 1050 diam RRJ Cl 3 1200 diam RRJ Cl 3 Minor concrete box culverts 300 x 600 RCBC 300 x 1200 RCBC 300 x 1500 RCBC 450 x 1200 RCBC 450 x 1500 RCBC 600 x 1800 RCBC Drainage pits kerb inlet, heavy duty lintels (pipes) kerb inlet, heavy duty lintels (culverts) junction pit, heavy duty cover grated pit Minor concrete headwalls Inlet 450 diam 750 diam 1050 diam Outlet 450 diam 750 diam 1050 diam 1200 diam Open drains Concrete lining Minor rockfilled gabions & matresses 300mm rockfilled matress

420 1980 10

cu m cu m cu m

6.00 9.00 40.00

2,520.00 17,820.00 400.00 20,740.00 14,000.00 17,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31,500.00 16,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31,500.00 0.00 48,000.00 29,700.00 32,000.00 0.00 2,500.00 64,200.00

25.0% 25.0% 25.0%

630.00 4455.00 100.00 5,185.00 3500.00 4375.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,875.00 4125.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7875.00 0.00 12,000.00 7425.00 8000.00 0.00 625.00 16,050.00

3,150.00 22,275.00 500.00 25,925.00 17,500.00 21,875.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 39,375.00 20,625.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 39,375.00 0.00 60,000.00 37,125.00 40,000.00 0.00 3,125.00 80,250.00

100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 50 0 0 0 35 0 85 11 4 0 1

lin m lin m lin m lin m lin m lin m lin m lin m lin m

140.00 175.00 200.00 230.00 280.00 320.00 525.00 600.00 925.00

25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0%

lin m lin m lin m lin m lin m lin m

330.00 660.00 830.00 720.00 900.00 1260.00

25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0%

each each each each

2,700.00 8,000.00 2,700.00 2,500.00

25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0%

1 0 0

each each each

750 1000 1500

750.00 0.00 0.00 750.00 750.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 750.00 12,000.00 12,000.00 1,560.00 1,560.00 179,500.00

25.0% 25.0% 25.0%

187.50 0.00 0.00 187.50 187.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 187.50 3000.00 3,000.00 390.00 390.00 44,875.00

937.50 0.00 0.00 937.50 937.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 937.50 15,000.00 15,000.00 1,950.00 1,950.00 224,375.00

1 0 0 0

each each each each

750 1000 1500 2500

25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0%

200

lin m

60.00

25.0%

24

sq m

65.00

25.0% 25.0%

5.7 5.7.1 a) b) 5.7.2 a) b) c) 5.7.3 a) 5.7.4 a) b)

INFRASTRUCTURE - PAVEMENT Lean-mix concrete subbase 175mm lean mix subbase finish & cure Asphalt 150 mm (2x75) DG 20 50 mm DG 14 50 mm min. DG 14 overlay, variable correction + wearing (80mm average) Cold milling Gwydir Hwy Subgrade & sub-pavement drainage 100 mm subsoil & filter backfill cleanouts & inspection covers

3140 17943

cu m sq m

160.00 0.70

502,400.00 12,560.00 514,960.00 1,003,200.00 428,400.00 8,000.00 1,439,600.00 360.00 360.00 13,500.00 1,000.00 14,500.00 1,969,420.00

20.0% 20.0%

100480.00 2512.00 102,992.00 200640.00 85680.00 2000.00 288,320.00 90.00 90.00 3375.00 250.00 3,625.00 395,027.00

602,880.00 15,072.00 617,952.00 1,203,840.00 514,080.00 10,000.00 1,727,920.00 450.00 450.00 16,875.00 1,250.00 18,125.00 2,364,447.00

6270 2380 40

tonne tonne tonne

160.00 180.00 200.00

20.0% 20.0% 25.0%

30

lin m

12.00

25.0%

450 10

lin m each

30.00 100.00

25.0% 25.0% 20.1%

5.8 5.8.1 5.8.1.1 5.8.2 a) b) c) d) e)

INFRASTRUCTURE - STRUCTURES Bridges Mehi River Bridge Major culverts Culvert at two depressions Skinners Creek Extend existing Skinners Creek Newell Highway culvert Scour protection (300mm rockfilled matress) 75mm AC surface

1410

sq m

2000.00

2,820,000.00 2,820,000.00 208,000.00 632,000.00 48,000.00 46,475.00 43,280.00 977,755.00

20.0%

564000.00 564,000.00 52000.00 158000.00 12000.00 11618.75 10820.00 244,438.75

3,384,000.00 3,384,000.00 260,000.00 790,000.00 60,000.00 58,093.75 54,100.00 1,222,193.75

260 790 32 715 1082

sq m sq m sq m sq m sq m

800.00 800.00 1500.00 65.00 40.00

25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0%

5.8.3 5.8.3.1 a) 5.8.3.2 b) 5.8.4 a)

Reinforced soil walls Design Supplier design Construction Supply and installation Retaining walls Wall #1

15%

item

16500.00

2,475.00 2,475.00 110,000.00 110,000.00 0.00 0.00 3,910,230.00

20.0%

495.00 495.00 22000.00 22,000.00 0.00 0.00 830,933.75

2,970.00 2,970.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 0.00 0.00 4,741,163.75

400

sq m

275.00

20.0%

sq m

300.00

20.0% 21.3%

5.9 5.9.1 a) 5.9.2 a)

INFRASTRUCTURE - LOCAL ROADS Gwydirfield Road Construct new link Webb Avenue Terminate avenue

2400

sq m

150.00

360,000.00 360,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00

40.0%

144000.00 144,000.00 5000.00 5,000.00

504,000.00 504,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00

Item

20,000.00

25.0%

Moree_PREFERr2.XLS Sheet: North Rural Sect Detail Est

24/04/2001 3 of 5

5.9.3 a)

Steel Camp site Access

Item

20,000.00

20,000.00 20,000.00 400,000.00

25.0% 38.5%

5000.00 5,000.00 154,000.00

25,000.00 25,000.00 554,000.00

5.10 5.10.1 5.10.1.1 a)

INFRASTRUCTURE - URBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPING Urban design Steel Camp site Steel Camp mural

Item

10,000.00

10,000.00 10,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00

20.0%

2000.00 2,000.00 1000.00 1,000.00

12,000.00 12,000.00 6,000.00 6,000.00

5.10.1.2 Northern entry a) Entry statement 5.10.2 5.10.2.1 a) b) c) d) 5.10.2.2 a) b) b) c) d) Landscaping Northern entry site preparation advanced stock maintain obtain mulch from stockpile and spread Racecourse site preparation advanced stock tube stock maintain obtain mulch from stockpile and spread

Item

5,000.00

20.0%

1000 100 1 1000

sq m each item sq m

1.00 50.00 600.00 5.50

1,000.00 5,000.00 600.00 5,500.00 12,100.00 3,500.00 15,000.00 5,000.00 600.00 19,250.00 43,350.00 70,450.00

20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0%

200.00 1000.00 120.00 1100.00 2,420.00 700.00 3000.00 1000.00 120.00 3850.00 8,670.00 14,090.00

1,200.00 6,000.00 720.00 6,600.00 14,520.00 4,200.00 18,000.00 6,000.00 720.00 23,100.00 52,020.00 84,540.00

3500 300 1000 1 3500

sq m each each item sq m

1.00 50.00 5.00 600.00 5.50

20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0%

5.11 5.11.1 a) b) 5.11.2 a) b) c) 5.11.3 a)

INFRASTRUCTURE - MISCELLANEOUS Demolition Hifields Lot 3 DP 540123 - residence Long lands Lot 1 DP 535838 - residence Minor concrete works island infill (include bedding, feature surface treatment) SA kerb SF kerb UPVC ducts 150 mm conduit

1 1

item item

10,000.00 10,000.00

10,000.00 10,000.00 20,000.00 10,000.00 0.00 3,625.00 13,625.00 4,500.00 4,500.00

25.0% 25.0%

2500.00 2500.00 5,000.00 2000.00 0.00 725.00 2,725.00 900.00 900.00

12,500.00 12,500.00 25,000.00 12,000.00 0.00 4,350.00 16,350.00 5,400.00 5,400.00

200 0 145

sq m lin m lin m

50.00 45.00 25.00

20.0% 20.0% 20.0%

150

lin m

30.00

20.0%

5.11.4 Road furniture, marking & signposting 5.11.4.1 Guide posts a) guide posts 5.11.4.2 Safety barriers a) steel guard fence 5.11.4.3 a) b) c) d) e) Pavement marking edge line (paint) barrier line continuous line broken line chevrons

82

each

30.00

2,460.00 2,460.00 110,500.00 110,500.00 6,120.00 500.00 360.00 2,208.00 18,750.00 27,938.00 2,552.00 2,552.00 90,000.00 45,000.00 4,000.00 3,200.00 1,500.00 143,700.00

20.0%

492.00 492.00 33150.00 33,150.00 1224.00 100.00 72.00 441.60 3750.00 5,587.60 510.40 510.40 18000.00 9000.00 800.00 640.00 300.00 28,740.00

2,952.00 2,952.00 143,650.00 143,650.00 7,344.00 600.00 432.00 2,649.60 22,500.00 33,525.60 3,062.40 3,062.40 108,000.00 54,000.00 4,800.00 3,840.00 1,800.00 172,440.00

1300

lin m

85.00

30.0%

4080 200 200 1840 250

lin m lin m lin m lin m sq m

1.50 2.50 1.80 1.20 75.00

20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0%

5.11.4.4 Pavement markers a) raised pavement markers 5.11.4.5 a) b) c) d) e) 5.11.5 5.11.5.1 a) b) c) d) e) 5.11.6 a) 5.11.7 a) b) c) d) e) f) g) Signposting advance directional directional directional small warning hazard boards Street lighting Newell Highway north intersection Supply & lay UPVC Conduit/Cable cable pits control cabinet Concrete plinth for light column Lighting column and fittings Fencing rural boundary fence Vegetation spray weeds with herbicide Load, haul, place topsoil on verges hydroseeding straw mulch spray with bitumen lining with jute mesh watering

319

each

8.00

20.0%

3 3 4 16 6

each each each each each

30000.00 15000.00 1000.00 200.00 250.00

20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0%

700 8 1 24 24

lin m each each each each

30.00 200.00 9500.00 1000.00 1500.00

21,000.00 1,600.00 9,500.00 24,000.00 36,000.00 92,100.00 18,000.00 18,000.00 500.00 46,000.00 9,200.00 5,520.00 9,200.00 350.00 1,600.00 72,370.00 507,745.00

20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0%

4200.00 320.00 1900.00 4800.00 7200.00 18,420.00 2700.00 2,700.00 100.00 9200.00 1840.00 1104.00 1840.00 70.00 320.00 14,474.00 112,699.00

25,200.00 1,920.00 11,400.00 28,800.00 43,200.00 110,520.00 20,700.00 20,700.00 600.00 55,200.00 11,040.00 6,624.00 11,040.00 420.00 1,920.00 86,844.00 620,444.00

600

lin m

30.00

15.0%

1000 18400 18400 18400 18400 100 1

sq m sq m sq m sq m sq m lin m item

0.50 2.50 0.50 0.30 0.50 3.50 1600.00

20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 22.2%

5.11.8 5.11.8.1 a) b) c)

Property adjustment works Gwydirfield Lot 1 DP 575425 - house fronts Gwydirfield Rd Construct driveway Construct rural fence Install gate

1 230 1

item lin m each

1,000.00 30.00 250.00

1,000.00 6,900.00 250.00 8,150.00

25.0% 20.0% 20.0%

250.00 1380.00 50.00 1,680.00

1,250.00 8,280.00 300.00 9,830.00

5.11.8.2 a) b) c) 5.11.8.3 a) b) c)

Torelliana Lot 1 DP 565380 - rural property Construct driveway Construct rural fence Install gate Hifields Lot 3 DP 540123 - house fronts Gwydirfield Rd - whole Construct driveway Construct rural fence Install gate

1 20 1

item lin m each

1,000.00 30.00 250.00

1,000.00 600.00 250.00 1,850.00 1,000.00 9,300.00 250.00 10,550.00 1,000.00 5,700.00

25.0% 20.0% 20.0%

250.00 120.00 50.00 420.00 250.00 1860.00 50.00 2,160.00 250.00 1140.00

1,250.00 720.00 300.00 2,270.00 1,250.00 11,160.00 300.00 12,710.00 1,250.00 6,840.00

1 310 1

item lin m each

1,000.00 30.00 250.00

25.0% 20.0% 20.0%

5.11.8.4 Long lands Lot 1 DP 535838 - rural property - fronts Gwydirfield Rd - whole a) Construct driveway b) Construct rural fence

1 190

item lin m

1,000.00 30.00

25.0% 20.0%

Moree_PREFERr2.XLS Sheet: North Rural Sect Detail Est

24/04/2001 4 of 5

c) 5.11.8.5 a) b) c) 5.11.8.6 a) b) c) 5.11.8.7 a) b) c)

Install gate Part Katanning Lot 4 DP 869679 - rural property - partial Construct driveway Construct rural fence Install gate Part Katanning Lot 3 DP 869679 - rural property - partial Construct driveway Construct rural fence Install gate TSR Stormont Lot 5 DP 864063 - rural Construct driveway Construct rural fence Install gate

each

250.00

250.00 6,950.00 1,000.00 10,800.00 250.00 12,050.00 1,000.00 3,000.00 250.00 4,250.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 250.00 5,250.00 51,050.00 558,795.00

20.0%

50.00 1,440.00 250.00 2160.00 50.00 2,460.00 250.00 600.00 50.00 900.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 600.00 50.00 1,050.00 10,510.00 123,209.00

300.00 8,390.00 1,250.00 12,960.00 300.00 14,510.00 1,250.00 3,600.00 300.00 5,150.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,400.00 2,400.00 2,400.00 3,600.00 300.00 6,300.00 61,560.00 682,004.00

1 360 1

item lin m each

1,000.00 30.00 250.00

25.0% 20.0% 20.0%

1 100 1

item lin m each

1,000.00 30.00 250.00

25.0% 20.0% 20.0%

0 0 0

item lin m each

1,000.00 30.00 250.00

20.0% 20.0% 20.0%

5.11.8.8 Newell Hwy frontage properties a) Construct driveway 5.11.8.9 a) b) c) Racecourse - partial Relocate shed Construct rural fence Install gate Sub total 5.11.8

item

1,000.00

20.0%

1 100 1

item lin m each

2,000.00 30.00 250.00

20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.6% 22.0%

6.0 a)

HANDOVER Modify signage

item

5,000.00

5,000.00 5,000.00

25.0% 25.0%

1250.00 1,250.00

6,250.00 6,250.00

Moree_PREFERr2.XLS Sheet: North Rural Sect Detail Est

24/04/2001 5 of 5

MOREE BYPASS BASE CASE OPTION (Gosport Street Preferred Option) - Northern Urban Section Northern Urban Section Estimate Summary
(Ch 1020 to Ch 1920)
Item Estimate ($) (excluding contingency) Contingency Amount ($) Estimate ($) (including contingency) % of Total Estimate Comments/Assumptions

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

Project Development Route/Concept/EIS/Reps Report Project Management Services Client Representation Sub total

$333,333.33 $66,666.67 $6,666.67 $406,666.67

28% 28% 28% 28.0%

$93,333.33 $18,666.67 $1,866.67 $113,866.67

$426,666.67 $85,333.33 $8,533.33 $520,533.33

4.3%

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3

Investigation and Design Investigation amd Design Project Management Services Client Representation Sub total

$116,666.67 $26,666.67 $2,666.67 $146,000.00

28% 28% 28% 28.0%

$32,666.67 $7,466.67 $746.67 $40,880.00

$149,333.33 $34,133.33 $3,413.33 $186,880.00

1.5%

3.0 Property Acquisitions 3.1 Professional Services for property 3.2 Property Acquisition Costs 3.3 Property Resale Credits 3.4 Project Management Services 3.5 Client Representation Sub total 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Public Utility Adjustments Adjust Utilities Project Management Services Client Representation Sub total 5.0 Construction 5.1 Infrastructure - General 5.2 Infrastructure - Environmental 5.3 Infrastructure - Noise Mitigation 5.4 Infrastructure - Flood Mitigation 5.5 Infrastructure - Earthworks 5.6 Infrastructure - Drainage 5.7 Infrastructure - Pavement 5.8 Infrastructure - Structures 5.9 Infrastructure - Local Roads 5.10 Infrastructure - Urban Design & Landscaping 5.11 Infrastructure - Miscellaneous 5.12 Infrastructure - Site Management 5.13 Project Management Services 5.14 Client Representation Sub total 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Handover Existing signage Project Data and Performance Project Management Services Client Representation Sub total TOTAL CONCEPT ESTIMATE

$16,666.67 $1,767,000.00 -$20,000.00 $16,666.67 $1,666.67 $1,782,000.00

28% 25.0% -15.0% 28% 28% 25.5%

$4,666.67 $441,750.00 $3,000.00 $4,666.67 $466.67 $454,550.00

$21,333.33 $2,208,750.00 -$17,000.00 $21,333.33 $2,133.33 $2,236,550.00

18.5%

$600,818.93 $60,081.89 $6,008.19 $666,909.01

35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0%

$210,286.62 $21,028.66 $2,102.87 $233,418.15

$811,105.55 $81,110.55 $8,111.06 $900,327.16

7.5%

$220,983.33 $117,420.00 $445,400.00 $0.00 $256,778.00 $1,260,500.00 $1,875,980.00 $382,104.00 $220,000.00 $216,000.00 $1,209,655.00 $372,289.22 $124,096.41 $12,409.64 $6,713,615.60

30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 20.0% 25.2% 25.0% 20.1% 25.0% 15.0% 19.7% 21.1% 25% 25% 25% 22.2%

$66,295.00 $29,355.00 $89,080.00 $0.00 $64,599.50 $314,525.00 $376,339.00 $95,526.00 $33,000.00 $42,600.00 $254,831.00 $93,072.31 $31,024.10 $3,102.41 $1,493,349.32

$287,278.33 $146,775.00 $534,480.00 $0.00 $321,377.50 $1,575,025.00 $2,252,319.00 $477,630.00 $253,000.00 $258,600.00 $1,464,486.00 $465,361.53 $155,120.51 $15,512.05 $8,206,964.92

68.1%

$5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 $9,720,191.28

25.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 25.0% 24.0%

$1,250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,250.00 $2,337,314.14

$6,250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,250.00 $12,057,505.41

0.1% 100.0%

INDICATIVE COST ESTIMATE ($ million)


PROJECT REALITY CHECK Infrastructure construction Unit Quantity Rates (cost per unit) Comment

$12.06

Urban (Spa Baths to Mehi River) Length of project Length of lane kilomentres Pavement Area of structures - bridges - major culverts Earthworks (cut to fill) Earthworks (Select) Earthworks (Unsuitable)

km km m2 m2 m2 m3 m3 m3

0.9 3.08 18171 0 255 7600 5460 1000

$13.40 $3.92 $123.95 $0.00 $477,630.00 $7.50 $30.05 $43.75

Project cost/km Project cost/lane km Pavement cost /m2 pavement Bridge cost /m2 deck area (Mehi River bridge) Culvert cost/m2 deck area (creek crossings) Earthwork cost/m3 earthworks

Moree_PREFERr2.XLS Sheet North Urban Sect Summary

24/04/2001 1 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 RATES


Item No. Description of Work Quantity Unit Rate $ 3.0 3.2 H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H12 H13 H14 F1 D1 M1 M2 M6 M3 H16 H15 PROPERTY ACQUISITION PROPERTY ACQUISITION COSTS Gosport St Lot 1 DP855832 R & P Bussell - commercial 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 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 Showground Morton Street Lot 2 DP 600610 Jonenderbee Investments P/L - former Woolstore 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 Rail corridor (opp. Cnr River/Morton Sts) Lot 5 DP 845620 SRA - rail corridor Lot 4 DP 845620 SRA - rail corridor Lot 3 DP 829660 SRA - rail corridor - Woolstore siding Lot 3 DP 845620 SRA - residential lease - Mrs Samson Lot 2 DP 845620 SRA - rail corridor Lot 1 DP 845620 SRA - rail corridor PROPERTY RESALE CREDITS Lot 81 DP 1006136 RSA - workshop & tennis courts (entire) Lot 3 DP 829660 SRA - rail corridor - Woolstore siding Lot 1 DP855832 R 7 P Russell - commercial Lot E DP 363918 K & T Bella - residence Lot D DP 363918 HRM QE2 Police Dept - residence Lot 3 DP 667744 K & G Berger - residence Lot 3 DP 664162 D Berger - residence Lot B DP 356257 K & G Berger - residence Lot A DP 356257 M Berger - residence Lot 5 Sec 31 DP 758706 K & G Berger - residual residential block Amount % $ Contingency Amount Total

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

item item item item item item item item item item item item item each each each each item item item item item item item item item

500,000.00 130,000.00 100,000.00 50,000.00 100,000.00 130,000.00 90,000.00 120,000.00 90,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 10,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 50,000.00 60,000.00 1,000.00 50,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 20,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00

500,000.00 130,000.00 100,000.00 50,000.00 100,000.00 130,000.00 90,000.00 120,000.00 90,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 10,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 50,000.00 60,000.00 1,000.00 50,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 20,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,767,000.00 0.00 -20,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -20,000.00

25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% -25.0% -15.0% -15.0% -15.0% -15.0% -15.0% -15.0% -15.0% -15.0% -15.0% -15.0%

125,000.00 32,500.00 25,000.00 12,500.00 25,000.00 32,500.00 22,500.00 30,000.00 22,500.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 2,500.00 5,000.00 5000.00 5000.00 12500.00 15000.00 250.00 12,500.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 5,000.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 441,750.00 0.00 3,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,000.00

625,000.00 162,500.00 125,000.00 62,500.00 125,000.00 162,500.00 112,500.00 150,000.00 112,500.00 125,000.00 125,000.00 12,500.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 62,500.00 75,000.00 1,250.00 62,500.00 1,250.00 1,250.00 1,250.00 25,000.00 1,250.00 1,250.00 1,250.00 2,208,750.00 0.00 -17,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -17,000.00

E1

3.3 a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j)

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

each item item item item item item item item item

-42,000.00 -20,000.00 -150,000.00 -65,000.00 -50,000.00 -25,000.00 -50,000.00 -65,000.00 -45,000.00 -30,000.00

4.0 4.1 4.1.1 a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) 4.1.2 a) b) c) d) e) f) 4.1.3 4.1.3.1 a) b) c) d) e) 4.1.3.2 a) b) c) 4.1.3.3 a)

PUBLIC UTILITY ADJUSTMENTS ADJUST UTILITIES Sewer Adjust sewer manhole to match new surface. Concrete encase 150 mm dia sewer main. Relocate 150 mm main Disconnect house service Construct manhole Disconnect house service Install house connection Remove abandoned pipe Water Adjust stop valve to match new surface Adjust hydrant to match new surface Disconnect house service Relocate house service Remove & relocate main Concrete encase main. Telstra Cables & conduits Protection - 2 x P100 Relocate - Flexible Conduit 2xP100 Adjust Manhole Disconnect house service Connect house service Distribution Adjust - Flexible Cable P50 Adjust - Junction Pits (medium size) Adjust Pillar Supervision Allow % of Telstra Adjustments

3 90 365 11 6 11 1 340

each m m each each each each m

425.00 365.00 310.00 250.00 5,000.00 250.00 250.00 50.00

1,275.00 32,850.00 113,150.00 2,750.00 30,000.00 2,750.00 250.00 17,000.00 200,025.00 1,125.00 1,125.00 2,750.00 1,500.00 37,185.00 47,450.00 91,135.00

35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0%

446.25 11497.50 39602.50 962.50 10500.00 962.50 87.50 5950.00 70,008.75 393.75 393.75 962.50 525.00 13014.75 16607.50 31,897.25

1,721.25 44,347.50 152,752.50 3,712.50 40,500.00 3,712.50 337.50 22,950.00 270,033.75 1,518.75 1,518.75 3,712.50 2,025.00 50,199.75 64,057.50 123,032.25

3 3 11 30 185 130

each each each lin m m m

375.00 375.00 250.00 50.00 201.00 365.00

35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0%

60 70 5 11 1

lin m lin m no. each each

150.00 50.00 5,000.00 250.00 250.00

9,000.00 3,500.00 25,000.00 2,750.00 250.00 40,500.00 1,250.00 1,980.00 2,000.00 5,230.00 1,028.93

35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0%

3150.00 1225.00 8750.00 962.50 87.50 14,175.00 437.50 693.00 700.00 1,830.50 360.12

12,150.00 4,725.00 33,750.00 3,712.50 337.50 54,675.00 1,687.50 2,673.00 2,700.00 7,060.50 1,389.05

50 3 2

lin m each Item

25.00 660.00 1,000.00

35.0% 35.0% 35.0%

15%

item

6,859.50

35.0%

Moree_PREFERr2.XLS Sheet: North Urban Sect Detail Est

24/04/2001 1 of 6

1,028.93 4.1.4 a) b) c) d) Electrical Relocate & adjust supply poles with LV Relocate & adjust supply poles with HV Relocate u/g supply conduits & cables Disconnect house service 5 13 65 11 each each lin m each 10,000.00 15,000.00 250.00 150.00 50,000.00 195,000.00 16,250.00 1,650.00 262,900.00 600,818.93 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0%

360.12 17500.00 68250.00 5687.50 577.50 92,015.00 210,286.62

1,389.05 67,500.00 263,250.00 21,937.50 2,227.50 354,915.00 811,105.55

5.0 5.1 5.1.1 a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) l) m) n) o) p)

CONSTRUCTION INFRASTRUCTURE - GENERAL Mobilisation & establishment (distributed equally over the 3 road sections) Establish site office plumber electrician phone site earthworks fence site offices - hire toilet - hire sewer pump out security phone fax electrical stationary computer rubbish removal

0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

item item item item item item week week week week week week week week week week

3,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 500.00 2,000.00 9,600.00 1,000.00 200.00 450.00 500.00 200.00 35.00 150.00 30.00 25.00 80.00

1,000.00 666.67 666.67 166.67 666.67 3,200.00 25,000.00 5,000.00 11,250.00 12,500.00 5,000.00 875.00 3,750.00 750.00 625.00 2,000.00 73,116.67 6,666.67 6666.67

30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0%

300.00 200.00 200.00 50.00 200.00 960.00 7500.00 1500.00 3375.00 3750.00 1500.00 262.50 1125.00 225.00 187.50 600.00 21,935.00 2000.00 2000.00

1,300.00 866.67 866.67 216.67 866.67 4,160.00 32,500.00 6,500.00 14,625.00 16,250.00 6,500.00 1,137.50 4,875.00 975.00 812.50 2,600.00 95,051.67 8,666.67 8666.67

5.1.2 a) 5.1.3

Community liaison (distributed equally over the 3 road sections)

0.33

item

20,000.00

30.0%

Management Plans - environmental, earthworks, traffic, OHS, QA (15 no. for project distributed over the 3 road sections)

each

10,000.00

50,000.00 50000.00

30.0%

15000.00 15000.00

65,000.00 65000.00

5.1.4 a) b) c) d) e) f)

Traffic Control Control Temporary signs Install temporary barriers Remove temporary barriers mesh fence Provide temporary access at driveways

0.33 67 360 360 1500 1

item each lin m lin m lin m each

15,000.00 180.00 180.00 6.50 4.00 1,000.00

5,000.00 12,060.00 64,800.00 2,340.00 6,000.00 1,000.00 91,200.00 220,983.33

30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0%

1500.00 3618.00 19440.00 702.00 1800.00 300.00 27,360.00 66,295.00

6,500.00 15,678.00 84,240.00 3,042.00 7,800.00 1,300.00 118,560.00 287,278.33

5.2 5.2.1 5.2.1.1 a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) l) m) n) o) p) q) r) s) t) v) w) a) b) a) b) c) a) a) 5.2.1.2 a) b) c) d) e) f) g) 5.2.2 5.2.2.1 a) b) c) 5.2.2.2 a) 5.2.2.3 a) b)

INFRASTRUCTURE - ENVIRONMENTAL Environmental protection Building condition inspections Gosport Street Lot 16 DP 789779 The Council of Moree Plains - vacant Lot 17 DP 789779 The Council of Moree Plains - Spa baths Lot 12 Sec 25 DP 758706 Highlead P/L lease to Wongabindi P/L - Victoria Hotel Lot A DP 380440 P Heffernan - commercial Lot 1 DP 619921 N Baird - commercial Lot 1 DP 731176 Cascades Theatre & Char Grill P/L - theatre, restaurant Lot 1 DP 739394 E Hetherington - industrial Lot D DP 11464 B & K Stevens - commercial Lot 2 DP630418 P Lowrey - commercial Lot 1 DP 619087 P & H Brooks - commercial Auto consol 8147-209 Lots A, B & C DP 15663 P & H Brooks - commercial Lot 2 DP 315499 N Andronicos - commercial Lot 4 DP 715478 M Cikota - commercial Motel Auto consol 13991-50 Lots 9-10 DP 3338 P Rickman - day care office Lot 2 DP 221423 I & R Urquart - residential Lot 1 DP 221423 E & J Taylor - residential Lot 7 DP 663093 G & E Antic - residential Lot 1 DP 390187 K & G Berger - residential Lot B DP 342689 B & M Buckley - residential Lot A DP 342689 E & J Gearing - residential Lot 5 DP 667887 M Scott - residential Lot A DP 917998 T Campbell - residential Alice Street Lot 1 DP 315489 N Andronicos - commercial Lot 1 DP 827950 R & P Bussell - residential River Street Lot B DP 379289 P & S Cooper - residential Lot A DP 379289 D Paul - residential Showground Morton Street east residences Railway property Lot 3 DP 845620 SRA - residential lease (residence relocated) Site monitoring (distributed over the 3 road sections) Noise Ground vibration Air pollution Water quality Vegetation protection Fauna inspections Heritage - aboriginal Erosion & sedimentation control Temporary sediment control basins Earthworks for sedimentation control basins Inlets, spillways for sedimentation control basins Removal of sedimentation control structures Treat contaminated water & discharge water sediment control structures Other temporary works Installation & removal temporary drains and dykes installation & removal Silt fencing

0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 50 2

each each each each each each each each each each each each each each each each each each each each each each each each each each each each item

300.00 2,000.00 1,500.00 300.00 300.00 600.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 2,000.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 5,000.00 300.00 300.00

0.00 4,000.00 3,000.00 600.00 600.00 1,200.00 600.00 600.00 600.00 600.00 600.00 600.00 4,000.00 600.00 600.00 600.00 600.00 600.00 600.00 600.00 600.00 600.00 600.00 600.00 600.00 600.00 10,000.00 15,000.00 600.00 50,400.00

25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0%

0.00 1000.00 750.00 150.00 150.00 300.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 1000.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 2500.00 3750.00 150.00 12,600.00

0.00 5,000.00 3,750.00 750.00 750.00 1,500.00 750.00 750.00 750.00 750.00 750.00 750.00 5,000.00 750.00 750.00 750.00 750.00 750.00 750.00 750.00 750.00 750.00 750.00 750.00 750.00 750.00 12,500.00 18,750.00 750.00 63,000.00

0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 1 0.33

item item item item item item item

13,500.00 13,500.00 2,500.00 5,000.00 4,000.00 2,000.00 5,000.00

4,500.00 4,500.00 833.33 1,666.67 1,333.33 2,000.00 1,666.67 16,500.00

25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0%

1125.00 1125.00 208.33 416.67 333.33 500.00 416.67 4,125.00

5,625.00 5,625.00 1,041.67 2,083.33 1,666.67 2,500.00 2,083.33 20,625.00

120 3 3

cu m each item

30.00 300.00 150.00

3,600.00 900.00 450.00 4,950.00 1,200.00 1,200.00 3,600.00 2,450.00

25.0% 25.0% 25.0%

900.00 225.00 112.50 1,237.50 300.00 300.00 900.00 612.50

4,500.00 1,125.00 562.50 6,187.50 1,500.00 1,500.00 4,500.00 3,062.50

item

400.00

25.0%

600 350

lin m lin m

6.00 7.00

25.0% 25.0%

Moree_PREFERr2.XLS Sheet: North Urban Sect Detail Est

24/04/2001 2 of 6

c) 5.2.2.4 a) b) c) d) 5.2.3 a) b) c)

Hay bale silt traps Maintenance Temporary sedimentation control basins Temporary drains Silt fencing Hay bale silt traps Permanent Sediment/Chemical Spillage Control Basins Earthworks for sedimentation control basins Inlets, spillways for sedimentation control basins Cleaning of sedimentation control structures

53

each

30.00

1,590.00 7,640.00 630.00 800.00 800.00 5,300.00 7,530.00 27,000.00 1,200.00 1,000.00 29,200.00 117,420.00

25.0%

397.50 1,910.00 157.50 200.00 200.00 1325.00 1,882.50 6750.00 300.00 250.00 7,300.00 29,355.00

1,987.50 9,550.00 787.50 1,000.00 1,000.00 6,625.00 9,412.50 33,750.00 1,500.00 1,250.00 36,500.00 146,775.00

3 1 1 53

each item item each

210.00 800.00 800.00 100.00

25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0%

600 1 1

cu m item item

45.00 1,200.00 1,000.00

25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0%

5.3 5.3.1 a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) l) m) n) o) p) q) r) s) t) v) w) a) b) a) b) c) a) b) c) a) b) a)

INFRASTRUCTURE - NOISE MITIGATION Properties Gosport Street Lot 16 DP 789779 The Council of Moree Plains - vacant Lot 17 DP 789779 The Council of Moree Plains - Spa baths (mound) Lot 12 Sec 25 DP 758706 Highlead P/L lease to Wongabindi P/L - Victoria Hotel (thick glazing) Lot A DP 380440 P Heffernan - commercial (thick glazing) Lot 1 DP 619921 N Baird - commercial (thick glazing) Lot 1 DP 731176 Cascades Theatre & Char Grill P/L - theatre, restaurant (thick glazing Lot 1 DP 739394 E Hetherington - industrial (thick glazing) Lot D DP 11464 B & K Stevens - commercial (thick glazing) Lot 2 DP630418 P Lowrey - commercial (thick glazing) Lot 1 DP 619087 P & H Brooks - commercial (thick glazing) Auto consol 8147-209 Lots A, B & C DP 15663 P & H Brooks - commercial (thick glaze Lot 2 DP 315499 N Andronicos -commercial (thick glazing) Lot 1 DP 715478 M Cikota - Motel (thick glazing) Auto consol 13991-50 Lots 9-10 DP 3338 P Rickman - day care office Lot 2 DP 221423 I & R Urquart - residence Lot 1 DP 221423 E & J Taylor - residence Lot 7 DP 663093 G & E Antic - residence Lot 1 DP 390187 K & G Berger - residence Lot B DP 342689 B & M Buckley - residence Lot A DP 342689 E & J Gearing - residence Lot 5 DP 667887 M Scott - residence Lot A DP 917998 T Campbell - residence Alice Street Lot 1 DP 315489 N Andronicos - shop Lot 1 DP 827950 R & P Bussell - residence (thick glazing, insulation, air con) River Street Lot B DP 379289 P & S Cooper - residence Lot A DP 379289 D Paul - residence showground Morton Street east residences - minor impact (thick glazing) residences - major impact (thick glazing, insulation, air con) hotel (thick glazing) Railway property Lot 81 DP 1006136 State Rail authority - tennis courts (demolished) Lot 3 DP 845620 SRA - residential lease (residence relocated) Detention basin Noise wall

0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 20 6 1 0 0 648

item item item item item item item item item item item item item item item item item item item item item item item item item item item item item item item item sq m

2,000.00 15,000.00 30,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 10,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 20,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 2,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 2,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 300.00 300.00 300.00

0.00 15,000.00 30,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 10,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 20,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40,000.00 90,000.00 15,000.00 0.00 0.00 194,400.00 445,400.00

20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0%

0.00 3000.00 6000.00 400.00 400.00 2000.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 4000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8000.00 18000.00 3000.00 0.00 0.00 38880.00 89,080.00

0.00 18,000.00 36,000.00 2,400.00 2,400.00 12,000.00 2,400.00 2,400.00 2,400.00 2,400.00 2,400.00 2,400.00 24,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48,000.00 108,000.00 18,000.00 0.00 0.00 233,280.00 534,480.00

5.4 5.4.1 a)

INFRASTRUCTURE - FLOOD MITIGATION Properties Nil

lin m

100.00

0.00 0.00

20.0% 20.0%

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

5.5 5.5.1 a) b) c) d) e) f) g)

h) j)

j) k) 5.5.2 a) 5.5.3 a)

INFRASTRUCTURE - EARTHWORKS Clearing & grubbing Tree removal Wood chip mulching to stockpile Disused pipe systems Disused watermain Disused sewer Abandoned footpath Salvage, haul, stockpile (near Woolstore) abandoned road pavement: Gosport St Gwydir Highway (Alice St) Strip & dispose abandoned road surface course Strip & dispose abandoned pavement: Railway (to south & rear of tennis courts) Gosport St lane Morton St link Abandoned pits Abandoned headwall Topsoil Strip, haul, stockpile topsoil for future use General earthworks cut to fill south of Gwydir Highway north of Gwydir Highway (Bypass + detention basin) cut to stockpile (adjacent Woolstore) cut to spoil off site Import fill Unsuitable ground material (excavate, haul, dispose & import, place select fill) Select material Select material in select material zone (stripped road base from stockpile) Select material in select material zone (imported) Fabric Geotextile supply and installation (subgrade, sub-pavement drains) Geogrid supply and installation (PQ) Dewatering Dewatering

2 1 100 30 1 1 120 180 2000 975 120 81 2 6

each cu m lin m lin m lin m sq m cu m cu m sq m sq m sq m sq m each each

200.00 8.00 50.00 40.00 40.00 15.00 9.00 9.00 2.50 10.00 10.00 10.00 1,000.00 500.00

400.00 8.00 5,000.00 1,200.00 40.00 15.00 1,080.00 1,620.00 5,000.00 9,750.00 1,200.00 810.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 31,123.00 8,100.00 8,100.00

25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0%

100.00 2.00 1250.00 300.00 10.00 3.75 270.00 405.00 1250.00 2437.50 300.00 202.50 500.00 750.00 7,780.75 2430.00 2,430.00

500.00 10.00 6,250.00 1,500.00 50.00 18.75 1,350.00 2,025.00 6,250.00 12,187.50 1,500.00 1,012.50 2,500.00 3,750.00 38,903.75 10,530.00 10,530.00

1620

cu m

5.00

30.0%

b) c) d) e) 5.5.4 a) b) 5.5.5 a) b) 5.5.6 a)

5400 2200 7600 0 0 0 1000 8,600.00 300 5160

cu m cu m cu m cu m cu m cu m cu m

6.00 15.00 15.00 20.00 35.00

45,600.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35,000.00 80,600.00 2,250.00 129,000.00 131,250.00 4,455.00 750.00 5,205.00 500.00 500.00 256,778.00

25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0%

11400.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8750.00 20,150.00 562.50 32250.00 32,812.50 1113.75 187.50 1,301.25 125.00 125.00 64,599.50

57,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43,750.00 100,750.00 2,812.50 161,250.00 164,062.50 5,568.75 937.50 6,506.25 625.00 625.00 321,377.50

cu m cu m

7.50 25.00

25.0% 25.0%

990 100

sq m sq m

4.50 7.50

25.0% 25.0%

item

500.00

25.0% 25.2%

Moree_PREFERr2.XLS Sheet: North Urban Sect Detail Est

24/04/2001 3 of 6

5.6 5.6.1 a) b) c) 5.6.2 a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) i) 5.6.3 a) b) c) d) e) f) 5.6.4 a) b) c) d) e) f) 5.6.5 5.6.5.1 a) b) c) 5.6.5.2 a) b) c) d) e) 5.6.6 a) 5.6.7 a) 5.6.8 a) b)

INFRASTRUCTURE - DRAINAGE Excavation Excavation for stormwater drainage structures Excavation for open drains Unsuitable ground excavation and replacement Precast reinforced concrete pipes 375 diam RRJ Cl 3 450 diam RRJ Cl 3 525 diam RRJ Cl 3 600 diam RRJ Cl 3 675 diam RRJ Cl 3 750 diam RRJ Cl 3 900 diam RRJ Cl 3 1050 diam RRJ Cl 3 1200 diam RRJ Cl 3 1350 diam RRJ Cl 3 Minor concrete box culverts 300 x 600 RCBC 300 x 1200 RCBC 300 x 1500 RCBC 450 x 1200 RCBC 450 x 1500 RCBC 600 x 1800 RCBC Drainage pits,structures kerb inlet, heavy duty lintels (pipes) kerb inlet, heavy duty lintels (culverts) junction pit, heavy duty cover grated pit special trench grate Minor concrete headwalls Inlet 450 diam 750 diam 1050 diam Outlet 450 diam 750 diam 1050 diam 1200 diam 1350 diam Open drains Concrete lining Minor rockfilled gabions & mattresses 300mm rockfilled mattress Water Quality Infrastructure (at detention basin) (excavation included in earthworks section) Combined sedimatation and spill basin (upstream of detention basin) Perimeter safety fence (around WQP only)

1490 1980 10

cu m cu m cu m

6.00 9.00 40.00

8,940.00 17,820.00 400.00 27,160.00 11,060.00 9,275.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,875.00 141,000.00 305,250.00 0.00 474,460.00 16,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16,200.00 415,800.00 448,500.00 67,500.00 24,000.00 32,000.00 2,500.00 20,000.00 95,000.00 241,000.00

25.0% 25.0% 25.0%

2235.00 4455.00 100.00 6,790.00 2765.00 2318.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1968.75 35250.00 76312.50 0.00 118,615.00 4125.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4050.00 103950.00 112,125.00 16875.00 6000.00 8000.00 625.00 5000.00 23750.00 60,250.00

11,175.00 22,275.00 500.00 33,950.00 13,825.00 11,593.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9,843.75 176,250.00 381,562.50 0.00 593,075.00 20,625.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20,250.00 519,750.00 560,625.00 84,375.00 30,000.00 40,000.00 3,125.00 25,000.00 118,750.00 301,250.00

79 53 0 0 0 0 15 235 330 0 712 50 0 0 0 18 330 398 25 3 4 1 2 380

lin m lin m lin m lin m lin m lin m lin m lin m lin m lin m

140.00 175.00 200.00 230.00 280.00 320.00 525.00 600.00 925.00 1,080.00

25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0%

lin m lin m lin m lin m lin m lin m

330.00 660.00 830.00 720.00 900.00 1,260.00

25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0%

each each each each each lin m

2,700.00 8,000.00 8,000.00 2,500.00 10,000.00 250.00

25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0%

16 0 0

each each each

750.00 1,000.00 1,500.00

12,000.00 0.00 0.00 12,000.00 12,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,500.00 19,500.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 4,680.00 4,680.00

20.0% 25.0% 25.0%

2400.00 0.00 0.00 2,400.00 3000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1875.00 4,875.00 3750.00 3,750.00 1170.00 1,170.00

14,400.00 0.00 0.00 14,400.00 15,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9,375.00 24,375.00 18,750.00 18,750.00 5,850.00 5,850.00

16 0 0 0 3

each each each each each

750.00 1,000.00 1,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00

25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0%

250

lin m

60.00

25.0%

72

sq m

65.00

25.0%

1 40

each lin m

15,000.00 80.00

15,000.00 3,200.00 18,200.00 1,260,500.00

25.0% 25.0% 25.0%

3750.00 800.00 4,550.00 314,525.00

18,750.00 4,000.00 22,750.00 1,575,025.00

5.7 5.7.1 a) b) 5.7.2 a) b) c) 5.7.3 a) 5.7.4 a) b)

INFRASTRUCTURE - PAVEMENT Lean-mix concrete subbase 175mm lean mix subbase finish & cure Asphalt 150 mm (2x75) DG 20 50 mm DG 14 50 mm min. DG 14 overlay, variable correction + wearing (80mm average) Cold milling Gwydir Hwy Subgrade & sub-pavement drainage 100 mm subsoil & filter backfill cleanouts & inspection covers

3180 18171

cu m sq m

160.00 0.70

508,800.00 12,720.00 521,520.00 968,000.00 363,600.00 8,000.00 1,339,600.00 360.00 360.00 13,500.00 1,000.00 14,500.00 1,875,980.00

20.0% 20.0%

101760.00 2544.00 104,304.00 193600.00 72720.00 2000.00 268,320.00 90.00 90.00 3375.00 250.00 3,625.00 376,339.00

610,560.00 15,264.00 625,824.00 1,161,600.00 436,320.00 10,000.00 1,607,920.00 450.00 450.00 16,875.00 1,250.00 18,125.00 2,252,319.00

6050 2020 40

tonne tonne tonne

160.00 180.00 200.00

20.0% 20.0% 25.0%

30

lin m

12.00

25.0%

450 10

lin m each

30.00 100.00

25.0% 25.0% 20.1%

5.8 5.8.1 5.8.1.1 a) 5.8.2 a)

INFRASTRUCTURE - STRUCTURES Bridges Mehi River Bridge Composite Substructure & Superstructure (length150m, width 10m) Major drainage structures Detention basin early storage/water quality/spillage chamber

sq m

2,000.00

0.00 0.00 382,104.00 382,104.00

20.0%

0.00 0.00 95526.00 95,526.00

0.00 0.00 477,630.00 477,630.00

255

sq m

1,500.00

25.0%

5.8.3 5.8.3.1 a) 5.8.3.2 b) 5.8.4 a)

Reinforced soil walls Design Supplier design Construction Supply and installation Retaining walls Wall #1

15%

item

0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 382,104.00

20.0%

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 95,526.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 477,630.00

sq m

275.00

20.0%

sq m

300.00

20.0% 25.0%

5.9 5.9.1 a) 5.9.2

INFRASTRUCTURE - LOCAL ROADS Gosport Street - Anne Street Road pavement River Street - Morton Street

Item

30,000.00

30,000.00 30,000.00

15.0%

4500.00 4,500.00

34,500.00 34,500.00

Moree_PREFERr2.XLS Sheet: North Urban Sect Detail Est

24/04/2001 4 of 6

a) 5.9.3 a) 5.9.4 a)

Road pavement link Morton Street - Oak Lane north link Road pavement link Railway station precinct Relocated carpark

Item

30,000.00

30,000.00 30,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 220,000.00

15.0%

4500.00 4,500.00 1500.00 1,500.00 22500.00 22,500.00 33,000.00

34,500.00 34,500.00 11,500.00 11,500.00 172,500.00 172,500.00 253,000.00

Item

10,000.00

15.0%

Item

150,000.00

15.0% 15.0%

5.10 5.10.1 5.10.1.2 a)

INFRASTRUCTURE - URBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPING Urban design Spa baths area Display

Item

10,000.00

10,000.00 10,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00

15.0%

1500.00 1,500.00 300.00 300.00

11,500.00 11,500.00 2,300.00 2,300.00

5.10.1.4 Gosport Street north a) Basin/park 5.10.2 5.10.2.1 a) b) c) d) e) 5.10.2.2 a) b) c) d) e) Landscaping Spa baths area site preparation advanced stock theme trees obtain mulch from stockpile and spread maintain Gosport St basin site preparation advanced stock theme trees obtain mulch from stockpile and spread maintain

Item

2,000.00

15.0%

1800 300 10 1000 1

sq m each each sq m item

1.00 50.00 8,000.00 5.50 2,000.00

1,800.00 15,000.00 80,000.00 5,500.00 2,000.00 104,300.00 7,200.00 5,000.00 80,000.00 5,500.00 2,000.00 99,700.00 216,000.00

20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0%

360.00 3000.00 16000.00 1100.00 400.00 20,860.00 1440.00 1000.00 16000.00 1100.00 400.00 19,940.00 42,600.00

2,160.00 18,000.00 96,000.00 6,600.00 2,400.00 125,160.00 8,640.00 6,000.00 96,000.00 6,600.00 2,400.00 119,640.00 258,600.00

7200 100 10 1000 1

sq m each each sq m item

1.00 50.00 8,000.00 5.50 2,000.00

20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 19.7%

5.11 5.11.1 a) b) c) d) e) f) g) a) b) c) a) b) c) d) 5.11.2 a) b) c) 5.11.3 a)

INFRASTRUCTURE - MISCELLANEOUS Demolition Gosport Street Lot 1 DP855832 R 7 P Russell - commercial 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 B DP 356257 K & G Berger - residential Lot A DP 356257 M Berger - residential River Street Lot A DP 373511 K Mead - residential Lot B DP 373511 E Smith - residential Lot 1 DP839694 Aboriginal Corp - residential Railway Lot 82 DP 1006136 RSA - former railway booking office Lot 81 DP 1006136 RSA - tennis court side shed Lot 8 DP 825743 SRA - residential Lot 3 DP 845620 SRA - residential lease Minor concrete works island infill (include bedding, feature surface treatment) SA kerb SF kerb UPVC ducts 150 mm conduit

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

item item item item item item item item item item item item item item

10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 20,000.00 100.00 10,000.00 10,000.00

10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 20,000.00 100.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 140,100.00 17,000.00 50,400.00 6,000.00 73,400.00 4,500.00 4,500.00

25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 20.0% 20.0% 25.0% 25.0%

2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 4000.00 20.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 34,020.00 3400.00 10080.00 1200.00 14,680.00 900.00 900.00

12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 24,000.00 120.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 174,120.00 20,400.00 60,480.00 7,200.00 88,080.00 5,400.00 5,400.00

340 1120 240

sq m lin m lin m

50.00 45.00 25.00

20.0% 20.0% 20.0%

150

lin m

30.00

20.0%

5.11.4 Road furniture, marking & signposting 5.11.4.1 Guide posts a) guide posts 5.11.4.2 Safety barriers a) steel guard fence 5.11.4.3 a) b) c) d) e) Pavement marking edge line (paint) barrier line continuous line broken line chevrons

each

30.00

240.00 240.00 51,000.00 51,000.00 1,845.00 2,250.00 90.00 1,392.00 22,500.00 28,077.00 2,272.00 2,272.00 120,000.00 60,000.00 4,000.00 800.00 1,500.00 186,300.00 267,889.00

20.0%

48.00 48.00 10200.00 10,200.00 369.00 450.00 18.00 278.40 4500.00 5,615.40 454.40 454.40 24000.00 12000.00 800.00 160.00 300.00 37,260.00 53,577.80

288.00 288.00 61,200.00 61,200.00 2,214.00 2,700.00 108.00 1,670.40 27,000.00 33,692.40 2,726.40 2,726.40 144,000.00 72,000.00 4,800.00 960.00 1,800.00 223,560.00 321,466.80

600

lin m

85.00

20.0%

1230 900 50 1160 300

lin m lin m lin m lin m sq m

1.50 2.50 1.80 1.20 75.00

20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0%

5.11.4.4 Pavement markers a) raised pavement markers 5.11.4.5 a) b) c) d) e) Signposting advance directional directional directional small warning hazard boards Sub toatal 5.11.4 5.11.5 5.11.5.1 a) b) c) d) e) 5.11.6 a) 5.11.7 a) b) c) d) e) f) g) Street lighting Gwydir Highway intersection Supply & lay UPVC Conduit/Cable cable pits control cabinet Concrete plinth for light column Lighting column and fittings Fencing rural boundary fence Vegetation spray weeds with herbicide Load, haul, place topsoil on verges/basin hydroseeding straw mulch spray with bitumen lining with jute mesh watering

284

each

8.00

20.0%

4 4 4 4 6

each each each each each

30,000.00 15,000.00 1,000.00 200.00 250.00

20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0%

700 8 1 32 32

lin m each each each each

30.00 200.00 9,500.00 1,000.00 1,500.00

21,000.00 1,600.00 9,500.00 32,000.00 48,000.00 112,100.00 12,000.00 12,000.00 500.00 25,800.00 5,160.00 3,096.00 5,160.00 350.00 1,600.00 41,666.00

20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 15.0% 15.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0%

4200.00 320.00 1900.00 6400.00 9600.00 22,420.00 1800.00 1,800.00 100.00 5160.00 1032.00 619.20 1032.00 70.00 320.00 8,333.20

25,200.00 1,920.00 11,400.00 38,400.00 57,600.00 134,520.00 13,800.00 13,800.00 600.00 30,960.00 6,192.00 3,715.20 6,192.00 420.00 1,920.00 49,999.20

400

lin m

30.00

1000 10320 10320 10320 10320 100 1

sq m sq m sq m sq m sq m lin m item

0.50 2.50 0.50 0.30 0.50 3.50 1,600.00

Moree_PREFERr2.XLS Sheet: North Urban Sect Detail Est

24/04/2001 5 of 6

5.11.8 5.11.8.1 a) b) 5.11.8.2 a) b) c) d)

Property adjustment works Lot 80 DP 1006136 RSA - purchased for relocated rail workshops relocate workshops New gravel access & hardstand Lot 3 DP 845620 residential relocated to Lot 3 DP 829660 (former SRA lot) Relocate residence & sheds Connect services Install boundary fence & gate Provide driveway

1 1

Item Item

40,000.00 15,000.00

40,000.00 15,000.00 55,000.00 60,000.00 1,500.00 3,000.00 1,000.00 65,500.00 1,800.00 1,800.00 5,700.00 5,700.00 128,000.00 280,000.00 150,000.00 430,000.00 1,209,655.00

20.0% 20.0%

8000.00 3000.00 11,000.00 12000.00 300.00 600.00 200.00 13,100.00 360.00 360.00 1140.00 1,140.00 25,600.00 56000.00 37500.00 93,500.00 254,831.00

48,000.00 18,000.00 66,000.00 72,000.00 1,800.00 3,600.00 1,200.00 78,600.00 2,160.00 2,160.00 6,840.00 6,840.00 153,600.00 336,000.00 187,500.00 523,500.00 1,464,486.00

1 1 100 1

Item Item Item Item

60,000.00 1,500.00 30.00 1,000.00

20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0%

5.11.8.3 Lot 5 Sec 31 DP 758706 K & G Berger - residential a) Install boundary fence 5.11.8.4 Lot 2 DP 600610 Jonenderbee Investments P/L - former Woolstore a) Install boundary fence Sub toatal 5.11.8 5.11.9 a) b) Rail/Road Traffic Signals (Gwydir Highway intersection) Install coordinated traffic signals Rail infrastructure modifications

60

Item

30.00

20.0%

190

Item

30.00

20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 25.0% 21.7% 21.1%

1 1

item item

280,000.00 150,000.00

6.0 a)

HANDOVER Modify signage

item

5,000.00

5,000.00 5,000.00

25.0% 25.0%

1250.00 1,250.00

6,250.00 6,250.00

Moree_PREFERr2.XLS Sheet: North Urban Sect Detail Est

24/04/2001 6 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)
Item Estimate ($) (excluding contingency) Contingency Amount ($) Estimate ($) (including contingency) % of Total Estimate Comments/Assumptions

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

Project Development Route/Concept/EIS/Reps Report Project Management Services Client Representation Sub total

$333,333.33 $66,666.67 $6,666.67 $406,666.67

28% 28% 28% 28.0%

$93,333.33 $18,666.67 $1,866.67 $113,866.67

$426,666.67 $85,333.33 $8,533.33 $520,533.33

9.0%

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3

Investigation and Design Investigation amd Design Project Management Services Client Representation Sub total

$116,666.67 $26,666.67 $2,666.67 $146,000.00

28% 28% 28% 28.0%

$32,666.67 $7,466.67 $746.67 $40,880.00

$149,333.33 $34,133.33 $3,413.33 $186,880.00

3.2%

3.0 Property Acquisitions 3.1 Professional Services for property 3.2 Property Acquisition Costs 3.3 Property Resale Credits 3.4 Project Management Services 3.5 Client Representation Sub total 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Public Utility Adjustments Adjust Utilities Project Management Services Client Representation Sub total 5.0 Construction 5.1 Infrastructure - General 5.2 Infrastructure - Environmental 5.3 Infrastructure - Noise Mitigation 5.4 Infrastructure - Flood Mitigation 5.5 Infrastructure - Earthworks 5.6 Infrastructure - Drainage 5.7 Infrastructure - Pavement 5.8 Infrastructure - Structures 5.9 Infrastructure - Local Roads 5.10 Infrastructure - Urban Design & Landscaping 5.11 Infrastructure - Miscellaneous 5.12 Infrastructure - Site Management 5.13 Project Management Services 5.14 Client Representation Sub total 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Handover Refurbish Frome Street south Project Data and Performance Project Management Services Client Representation Sub total TOTAL CONCEPT ESTIMATE

$16,666.67 $53,000.00 $0.00 $16,666.67 $1,666.67 $88,000.00

28% 25.0% -15.0% 28% 28% 26.2%

$4,666.67 $13,250.00 $0.00 $4,666.67 $466.67 $23,050.00

$21,333.33 $66,250.00 $0.00 $21,333.33 $2,133.33 $111,050.00

1.9%

$354,621.58 $35,462.16 $3,546.22 $393,629.95

35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0%

$124,117.55 $12,411.76 $1,241.18 $137,770.48

$478,739.13 $47,873.91 $4,787.39 $531,400.43

9.2%

$215,283.33 $56,758.33 $226,000.00 $0.00 $249,383.00 $115,290.00 $1,668,460.00 $0.00 $54,000.00 $108,500.00 $412,313.50 $186,359.29 $62,119.76 $6,211.98 $3,360,679.20

30.0% 25.0% 25.0% 20.0% 25.0% 25.0% 20.1% 20.0% 15.0% 19.8% 20.6% 25% 25% 25% 22.0%

$64,585.00 $14,189.58 $56,500.00 $0.00 $62,414.50 $28,822.50 $334,829.00 $0.00 $8,100.00 $21,450.00 $84,909.10 $46,589.82 $15,529.94 $1,552.99 $739,472.44

$279,868.33 $70,947.92 $282,500.00 $0.00 $311,797.50 $144,112.50 $2,003,289.00 $0.00 $62,100.00 $129,950.00 $497,222.60 $232,949.11 $77,649.70 $7,764.97 $4,100,151.64

70.9%

$163,000.00 $100,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $265,000.00 $4,659,975.82

25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 24.1%

$40,750.00 $25,000.00 $250.00 $250.00 $66,250.00 $1,121,289.59

$203,750.00 $125,000.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $331,250.00 $5,781,265.41

5.7% 100.0%

INDICATIVE COST ESTIMATE ($ million)


REALITY CHECK - Southern urban section Tee intersection upgrade + two lanes only in Gosport St Infrastrucutre construction Unit Unit Unit (cost per unit) $5.68 $1.73 $129.75 0.00 0.00 $10.13 $25.50 $43.75

$5.79
4.2.1 Urban South

Comment

Length of project Length of lane kilomentres Pavement area Area of structures - bridges - major culverts Earthworks (cut to fill + cut to spoil) Earthworks (Select) Earthworks (Unsuitable)

km km m2 m2 m2 m3 m3 m3

1.02 3.35 15440 0 0 9000 4680 1000

Project cost/km Project cost/lane km Pavement cost /m2 pavement Bridge cost /m2 deck area (Mehi River bridge) Culvert cost/m2 deck area (creek crossings) Earthwork cost/m3 earthworks

Moree_PREFERr2.XLS Sheet South Urban Sect Summary

24/04/2001 1 of 1

(This page intentionally left blank)

A
CHAPTER 0

P P E N D I X

6.4

VERIFICATION CHECKLIST

(This page intentionally left blank)

VERIFICATION CHECKLIST
Estimate Concurrence Checklist (DRAFT INITIAL CONCEPT ESTIMATE)
Project:

SH17 Newell Highway. Moree Bypass


Task/Activity Verification ! - Yes x - No N/A Evidence File Ref/Remark

Process: Items to be included with an estimate being submitted for concurrence Description of Project and Background A3 copies of plans, longitudinal sections and typical or critical cross sections. Aerial photos of the project showing the alignment option to gain an appreciation of the terrain / topography. Relevant extracts of EIS (Summary and Issues Volume) or extracts of the REF Copy of EIS determination/DUAP Conditions Geotechnical Reports A3 copy of Concept or Draft General Arrangement Drawings for major structures. Hard copy of Estimate including Summary Sheet with reality check data for comparison with similar projects. Electronic copy of estimate or spreadsheets including Summary Sheet. List of assumptions in the estimate and how they have been covered. List of critical, high risk and potentially difficult items in the estimate and how they have been addressed. Staging or methodology issues that may affect estimate and how they have been addressed. Relevant contingency included for the type of estimate submitted. Carry out a risk assessment on high risk items in the construction component of the estimate. Y Y Y Scope Report Scope Report Scope Report Attached Attached Attached

N/A N/A N/A N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Risk Plan Attached Scope Report Risk Plan & Scope Report Scope Report

Not yet developed Attached E-mail to Mark Andrew

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.

Document No: RTA-CSD-PMS-PR-P-91-F1..........

Issue 1.1

Page 1 of 1

(This page intentionally left blank)

A
CHAPTER 0

P P E N D I X

6.5

ESTIMATE APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE FORM

(This page intentionally left blank)

Estimate Approval and Acceptance (A)


PROJECT: PROJECT No.: ROAD No: LOCATION: REGION/ OFFICE: ESTIMATE OF COST: ESTIMATE STATUS: DATE: Moree Bypass (Gosport Street Option) 60621 SH17 Newell Highway Moree, NSW Western Region (Parkes) Initial Concept Estimates for 6 Scope Options Draft 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. Preparation of Project Estimate 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) Base Option plus Bullus Drive Base plus High SpeedSouthern Connection Option Base plus High Speed Southern Connection Option plus Bullus Drive Base plus High Speed Northern Connection Option Base Estimate (4 lanes in South Urban Section) 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) Base Option plus Bullus Drive Base plus High SpeedSouthern Connection Option Base plus High Speed Southern Connection Option plus Bullus Drive Base plus High Speed Northern Connection Option Base Estimate (4 lanes in South Urban Section) (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) Base Option plus Bullus Drive Base plus High SpeedSouthern Connection Option Base plus High Speed Southern Connection Option plus Bullus Drive Base plus High Speed Northern Connection Option Base Estimate (4 lanes in South Urban Section) $29.76M $31.22M $30.00M $31.44M $31.40M $32.07M $29.76M $31.22M $30.00M $31.44M $31.40M $32.07M $29.76M $31.22M $30.00M $31.44M $31.40M $32.07M

Estimate Review

Estimate Concurrence

General Manager Project Management Office Date:

Estimate Approval signature sheet

I approve the Initial Concept Option Estimates in the following amounts ($2001): Base Estimate (Low Speed Connections at Each End) Base Option plus Bullus Drive Base plus High SpeedSouthern Connection Option Base plus High Speed Southern Connection Option plus Bullus Drive Base plus High Speed Northern Connection Option Base Estimate (4 lanes in South Urban Section) Recommended Option Base plus High Speed Connections (North & South) PLUS Bullus Drive Upgrade $29.76M $31.22M $30.00M $31.44M $31.40M $32.07M $33.00M

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.

Director Road Network Infrastructure Date:

Estimate Approval signature sheet

C
CHAPTER0

H A P T E R

DETAILED ESTIMATE

7.1 Summary
This chapter sets down the process for preparataion of a Detailed Estimate.

7.2 Overview
There are 4 key stages to the preparation of a Detailed Estimate. these are: Preliminary Stage (or Interrogative Stage); Project Appreciation Stage; Estimate Establishment Stage; and Review and Approval Stage.

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

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

7.3 Preliminary Stage


The following flow diagram indicates the activities that will be undertaken in this interrogative stage:
RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001 Detailed Estimate

7-1

Preliminary or Interrogative Stage


Check Scope Definition Check drawings A

Check contracting strategy

Programme Estimate

Examine and Obtain data

Preliminary construction programme

List subcontractors

Send enquiries

List materials

Take off quantities

7.3.1 Estimate Programme


This activity is essential to the success of the preparation of the estimate. Approximately 2 weeks should be allowed for the preparation of a Detailed Estimate (assuming that all information is avaialble).

7.3.2 Data Collection


The estimator must be provided with all relevant information. This will include: 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 7.1;

7-2

Chapter 7 Issued December 2001

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

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, handover cost estimates and the like.

7.3.3 Project Programme


A project devlopment programme is to be prepared. This should indicate all significant activities and milestones, together with an approximate construction programme.

7.3.4 Significant Components


The estimator will be aware of likely significant components within the project estimate (for example, on a road project the concrete or asphalt sub-base and base; on a bridge project reinforcement and structural concrete). The estimator may seek quotations (verbally or in writing) from local suppliers or subcontractors for these components. Written quotations should be kept in the estimate files; verbal quotations should be recorded (a convenient form for recording verbal quotations is included in Appendix 7.2).

7.3.5 Quantities
Quantities are either provided in computer generated form, direct from the design, or taken-off by the estimator. Where quantities are provided by computer aided design packages, care must 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
7-3

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Detailed Estimate

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 undertaken in this project appreciation stage:

Project Appreciation Stage


A Site visit Complete information gathering F

Plant selection

G Determine resources and construction method

Pre-tender construction programme

7.4.1 Site Visit


A site visit should be made by anyone on the estimating team who is unfamiliar with the project. Appendix 7.3 gives a checklist of the significant items to be considered.

7.4.2 Construction Methods


For significant items (such as earthworks or road pavement), the estimator is to determine the probable construction methods that will

7-4

Chapter 7 Issued December 2001

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

be adopted by the successful tenderer, together with the likely plant.. For example, in a roadworks project, will the earthworks be by scraper or dozer and truck?

7.4.3 Pre-tender Construction Programme


From the methods assumed for significant items and historical productivities, a pre-tender construction programme is established. This will confirm the preliminary programme established earlier in the process.

7.5 Estimate Establishment Stage


This is the stage where the project estimate is actually produced. Before computations commence, the estimator must have regard to RTAs requirements as to final presentation of the estimate, and the Work Breakdown Structure and Summary required. A sample work breakdown structure is given in Appendix 7.4. The following diagram indicates the activities that will be iundertaken for any item that is to be estimated from first principles:

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Detailed Estimate

7-5

Price Establishment Stage (part 1)


F Plant costs K

Operating costs

Plant rates included in direct costs

Labour costs

Labour costs inclusive of all labour related on costs

Subcontract costs

ReviewQuotations

Add allowances Material costs

Build up of unit rates

7.5.1 Plant Costs


Plant costs will be calculated, together with an estimate of operating costs.

7.5.2 Labour Costs


All-in labour costs will be calculated.

7.5.3 Quotations
Quotations received from subcontractors and suppliers will be studied and adjusted to allow for missing items. For example, allowance will be made for escalation if required.

7-6

Chapter 7 Issued December 2001

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

7.5.4 Built-Up Unit Rates


At this stage, a number of built-up unit rates will have been calculated. It is often helpful in later reviews and investigations if a common format and calculation be used for establishing first principles rates. The estimate establishment stage continues as shown in the following diagram:

Estimate Establishment Stage (Part 2)


K Plant erection and transport

Labour costs not in directs

Compile indirect costs

Contingency calculation

Total and review

Risk calculation

Complete unit rates

Compile direct cost (quantities x rates)

Opportunity calculation

Compile Project Devlopm ent costs

Compile Detailed Investigation & Design costs

Compile Property Acquisition costs

Compile handover costs

7.5.5 Direct Cost Estimate


The direct cost estimate is calculated, by multiplying the quantities by direct cost rates. The rates used may be (for significant items) those calculated earlier in the process of preparation of the estimate, or deduced from historical data.

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Detailed Estimate

7-7

7.5.6 Indirect Cost Estimate


Reference to the pre-tender construction programme will establish the likely duration of the construction activities. This may then be used to calculate 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 adequate allowance 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 margin


To the sum of the indirect cost and the direct cost (cost) must be added 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 (after consideration of all risks and opportunities) in the project.

7-8

Chapter 7 Issued December 2001

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

Depending on the commercial strategy of the project, risks and opportunities 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 & cosntruct delivery method) of the cost should be allowed. Profit is the amount that the contractor anticipates it will make in profit after all costs have been paid. In the absence of any other data, an amount in the range of 3% (competitive market) to 5% of the cost should be allowed.

7.5.8 Project Development Costs


Project Devlopment costs are defined in Chapter 4. At the time of preparation of a Detailed Estimate, these costs have probably been incurred and may be determined from the project ledger.

7.5.9 Detailed Investigation and Design Costs


Detailed investigation and Design Costs are defined in Chapter 4. At the time of preparation of a Detailed Estimate, these costs have mostly been incurred and may be determined from the project ledger. However, allowance must be made for the remaining costs.

7.5.10 Property Acquistion Costs


Property acquisition costs are defined in Chapter 4. Property acquisition costs must be obtained from RTAs Property Section.
7-9

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Detailed Estimate

Allowances must be made for known property adjustments.

7.5.11 Handover Costs


Handover costs are defined in Chapter 4. A detailed estimate of these costs is to be prepared.

7.5.12 Risk & Opportunity


Issues of risk and opportunity are considered in Chapter 3. Some of the available software for use in quantification of risk and opportunity is listed in Chapter 10.3.

It is mandatory that a risk analysis be prepared for detailed cost estimates.

7.5.13 Contingency
Contingency is considered in Chapter 3. Appropriate contingencies must be added to each component of the project estimate. At detailed estimate stage, contingencies in the range of 10% to 20% are appropriate. Contingencies outside this range must be justified.

7.6 Review
Prior to commencement of the Concurrence, Approval and Acceptance procedure, the Project Manager should arrrange a review of the estimate. This should follow a structured format and be documented. A sample estimate review sheet is attached at Appendix 7.5.

7-10


Chapter 7 Issued December 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

7.7 Concurrence, Approval and Acceptance


All detailed estimates are the subject of Concurrence, approval and acceptance. Responsibilities are detailed in Chapter 2. The procedure is datailed in the following charts:

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Detailed Estimate

7-11

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

Start
* Plans * * Strategic - Street Plan or Topographical Map showing alignment, Major Utilities - visible/known Concept - Longitudinal Section, Critical Sections. Typical Cross Sections (Cut/Fill), M Utilities. ost Detailed - Full set of plans including longitudinal section, cross sections, Utilities locations clearly marked.

Project Manager

Project Manager

List Key Assumptions

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

Project M anager/Client Representative

Scope

Project Manager

List Known Risks * For all types of estimates use standard work breakdown structure in Table 3.1 of Project M anagement Guidelines "Estimating, Scope and Cost Control for Development Projects". Refer to Clause 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 RTA Estimating Manual. Consider known risks, staging, constructabliity, OHS&R, traffic management and other issues

Project Manager

Prepare Estimate in standard format

Project Manager

Provide Reality Checks

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

Project M anager/Senior Project Manager

Sign Off (preparation)

Project Manager

Is Estim of Cost over $20M, ate $10Mfor Federally funded or for a com project ? plex

NO

Submit estimate for approval: Section M anager <$5m Branch/Regional M anager >5m Information to be submitted with the estimate for a concurrence check: * Estimate Type * Plans * Scope * Key assumptions * Known risks * Reality check

YES
Project Manager Submit estimate for concurrence of General M anager, PM O

7-12


Chapter 7 Issued December 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

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

Project Manager to revise estimate / details

Estimator, PMO

* Log receipt of estimate * Is supporting information complete and amount of estimate acceptable ?

NO

YES
Estimator, PMO Sign Off (Concurrence Check)

General Manager, PMO

Sign Off (Concurrence)

Estimator, PMO

Return estimate and supporting information with GM, PMO Concurrence

Project Manager

Submit estimate for approval Section Manager <$5m Branch/Regional Manager $5m - $50m Director, Client Services > $50m

Client Representative

Is estimate consistent with project scoping and available funding ?

NO

YES
Client Representative Submit estimate to Client for acceptance

Client

*Estimate accepted * Project Budget set or revised

Appendix 7.6 contains a sample Detailed Cost Estimate Report submitted for Concurrence, Acceptance and Approval. FINISH
RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001 Detailed Estimate

7-13

Appendix 7.6 contains a sample detailed estimate report, to be submitted for concurrence, approval and acceptance of the detailed cost estimate. Appendix 7.7 contains the Verfification Checklist, to be submitted for concurrence, approval and acceptance of the detailed cost estimate. Appendix 7.8 contains the Estimate Approval and Acceptance form to be submitted for concurrence, approval and acceptance of the detailed cost estimate.

7-14


Chapter 7 Issued December 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

A
CHAPTER0

P P E N D I X

7.1

SAMPLE COST ESTIMATE SCOPE

(This page intentionally left blank)

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 DETAILED ESTIMATE SCOPE

CONTENTS
1 2 3 Summary ................................................................................................................1 Scope......................................................................................................................1 Key assumptions ....................................................................................................3

MR 635 - OLD WINDSOR ROAD AND MR 184 - WINDSOR ROAD SUNNYHOLT ROAD TO MERRIVILLE ROAD DETAILED ESTIMATE SCOPE 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 Windsor Road Start: 0000635/0120/A/0.150 Finish: 0000635/0120/A/1.950 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.

Page 1

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.

Page 2

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.

Page 3

(This page intentionally left blank)

A
CHAPTER0

P P E N D I X

7.2

SAMPLE VERBAL QUOTATION RECORD

(This page intentionally left blank)

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

(This page intentionally left blank)

A
CHAPTER0

P P E N D I X

7.3

SAMPLE SITE VISIT CHECKLIST

(This page intentionally left blank)

Site Visit Checklist & Record


Project Location : : Tender No : Visit Date : / /

Attended By :

Name

Organisation

Name

Organisation

Not Significant

1. ACCESS TO SITE
a) b) c) d) e) Nearest railhead Nearest port Nearest airport Nearest centre or town 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) b) c) General description Altitude 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

Site Visit Checklist.doc

Important See Comment

Not Applicable

Check Item

Comments

Site Visit Checklist & Record


Not Significant
Important See Comment

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
Site Visit Checklist.doc

Not Applicable

Check Item

Comments

Site Visit Checklist & Record


Not Significant
Important See Comment

f)

Sewer i) Availability ii) Authority iii) Reticulation and connection costs iv) Port-a-loo service costs MATERIALS AND SERVICES Temporary materials and consumables Hard filling Soft filling Road base Timber scantlings Piles and rounds Plywood Structural steel Petrol Fuel oil Other Permanent materials Concrete Coarse aggregate Fine aggregate Bulk cement Bagged cement Ready mix

4. a)

b)

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

Site Visit Checklist.doc

Not Applicable

Check Item

Comments

Site Visit Checklist & Record


Not Significant
Important See Comment

iv) 5. a)

Air LABOUR Availability

- personnel - parcels

b) c) d) e) f) g)

h)

i)

j)

- tradesman - labourers - plant operators Quality and reliability Union activity Appropriate awards Over award payments and site allowances Other current projects in area Board and lodgings for imported labour i) Availability and location ii) Standard iii) Cost Camp site if required i) Location ii) Cost of land iii) Clearing required iv) Services available v) Food costs vi) Catering contractors 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 Staff accommodation i) Rent if available ii) purchase

Notes:

Site Visit Checklist.doc

Not Applicable

Check Item

Comments

A
CHAPTER0

P P E N D I X

7.4

SAMPLE WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE

(This page intentionally left blank)

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 - Advice from other Government Agencies - Prepare EIS by Maunsells -Acid Soil Investigation -UNSW - Technical Input by Project Team - Acid Soil Peer Review-UTS - Concept Review by RTA Operations - Prepare Representations Report, Connell Wagner - Project Management by PHO - Project Estimating by PMO - Client Representation by PHO - Geotechnical Investigation by ETEC - Hydraulics/Hydrology by Water Pty/Ltd - Koala Monitoring -Aus. Museum - Advice from other Government Agencies - Public Utility Search by Seek - Roadworks Design, RTA Operations - Bridgeworks Design by Maunsells - Design Review by Kinhills - Technical Input by Project Team - Prepare Project EMP by Acacia - Prepare Contract Documents, Northern Region - Road Safety Audits by Northern Region - Prepare detailed estimate by Northern Region - Project Management by Northern Region - Client Representation by PHO - Property Valuations by VG - Cadastral Survey by Pointed Pty Ltd - Purchase A J King Property - Purchase Betters Property - Demolition of Jack Property by Acme - Project Management by Hunter Region - Client Representation by PHO

C C C C C C C C PC PC MC D D D D D D D D D D D D PD PD MD V V A A A PA MA U U U PU MU

EC ACQUT EC EC RTAD EC RTAB EC RTAB RTAD RTAD EC EC EC ACQUT EC RTAB EC EC RTAD EC RTAD RTAD RTAD RTAD RTAD ACQUT EC ACQUT ACQUT EC RTAD RTAD ACQUT ACQUT ACQUT RTAB RTAD

2. Detailed Investigation and Design

3. Property Acquisition

4. Public Utility Adjustments - Telstra Adjustments - Electricity by Energy Australia - Water/Sewerage by Byron Council - Project Management by PMS - Client Representation by PHO

Job

Subjobs

Subjob Component Code I I I I PI PS MI I I I PI PI PS PS MI MI O H H PH MH

Service Competition Category EC RTAB RTAD EC RTAD EC RTAD EC RTAD EC RTAB RTAB RTAB EC RTAD RTAD LGF RTAB EC RTAB RTAD

5. Bridge Construction

- Y River Bridge by Fernandes - 2 Creek Bridge by RTA Hunter Region - Technical Advice, Bridge Branch - Review of EMP by Acacia - Project Management by PMS - Site management & Surveillance by PED - Client Representation by PHO - Roadworks by Big Contractor Pty Ltd - Technical Advice - Pavement Branch - Demolition of Jack property by Acme - Systems Auditing by Project Team - Project Management by PMS - Construction Surveillance by PMS - Site management & Surveillance by PED - Client Representation by PHO - Decision Report Audit by PHO - Refurbish Old Network by Council - Project Data & Reporting by CMP - Prepare Operations EMP by Acacia - Project Management by PMS - Client Representation by PHO

6. Roadwork Construction

7. Handover

A
CHAPTER 0

P P E N D I X

7.5

SAMPLE ESTIMATE REVIEW SHEET

(This page intentionally left blank)

Estimate Review

Project Name: Attendance at Review


Name Position/Role in Estimate

Review Date:

Name

Position/Role in Estimate

CHECKLIST

Ref
1

Descritption
Design

Action
OK Action See Minutes Notes See Minutes OK Action See Minutes Notes See Minutes OK Action See Minutes Notes See Minutes OK Action See Minutes Notes See Minutes OK Action See Minutes Notes See Minutes OK Action See Minutes Notes See Minutes OK Action See Minutes Notes See Minutes OK Action See Minutes Notes See Minutes OK Action See Minutes Notes See Minutes

Ref
10.

Description
Subcontractors
**

Action
OK ** Action-See Minutes ** Notes See Minutes ** OK ** Action See Minutes ** Notes See Minutes ** OK ** Action See Minutes ** Notes See Minutes
** **

2.

Construction Method - Planning - sequencing - temporary work Programme - key dates - critical activities - contingency

11.

Major Plant - types - rates

3.

12.

Temporary Works - design detail - costing of

4.

Direct Work Cost Estimate

13.

Provisional Sums/Dayworks

5.

Indirect Cost Estimate

14.

Commercial

6.

Key indicators - major quantities - productivity

15.

Risk and Opportunity Analysis

OK Action See Minutes ** Notes See Minutes ** OK ** Action See Minutes ** Notes See Minutes ** 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

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
CHAPTER0

P P E N D I X

7.6

SAMPLE DETAILED ESTIMATE REPORT

(This page intentionally left blank)

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 DETAILED ESTIMATE REPORT

CONTENTS
DETAILED ESTIMATE REPORT................................................................................. CONTENTS..................................................................................................................... DETAILED ESTIMATE REPORT................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Summary ................................................................................................................1 Scope......................................................................................................................1 Key assumptions ....................................................................................................3 Risk contingency assessment.................................................................................4 Estimating process .................................................................................................4 Reality check..........................................................................................................4 Construction risk assessment .................................................................................5 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

MR 635 - OLD WINDSOR ROAD AND MR 184 - WINDSOR ROAD SUNNYHOLT ROAD TO MERRIVILLE ROAD DETAILED ESTIMATE REPORT 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 Windsor Road Start: 0000635/0120/A/0.150 Finish: 0000635/0120/A/1.950 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.
DtEsRpt.doc Page 1 27/03/01

MR635 Old Windsor Road & MR184 Windsor Road - Suunnyholt Road to Merriville Road - Detailed Estimate Report

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.

DtEsRpt.doc

Page 2

27/03/01

MR635 Old Windsor Road & MR184 Windsor Road - Suunnyholt Road to Merriville Road - Detailed Estimate Report

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.

DtEsRpt.doc

Page 3

27/03/01

MR635 Old Windsor Road & MR184 Windsor Road - Suunnyholt Road to Merriville Road - Detailed Estimate Report

4 RISK CONTINGENCY ASSESSMENT


Risk Incomplete detail design Contingency 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% 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. Allow for increased contingency to 30% ($825K)

Unsuitable ground conditions

Utility adjustments will have consequential effect requiring greater scope of work 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 Old Windsor Road / Windsor Road Sunnyholt Road to Merriville Road Comparison Projects Old Windsor Road Norbrik to Sunnyholt Cowpasture Road Section 5 Cumberland Highway Castlereagh Road Cost/lane km 2.18M Cost/lane km 2.32M 2.45M 1.3M 2.6M Earthworks rate per m3 57.57 Earthworks rate per m3 48.48 45.23 37.02 53.00 Pavement rate per m2 139.97 Pavement rate per m2 106.63 100.08 123.00 105.00

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
DtEsRpt.doc Page 4 27/03/01

MR635 Old Windsor Road & MR184 Windsor Road - Suunnyholt Road to Merriville Road - Detailed Estimate Report

7 CONSTRUCTION RISK ASSESSMENT


High Risk Items Culvert extension at Caddies Creek delayed by poor ground or water flows Unsuitable ground conditions Utility adjustments may not be completed before construction commences Access to property may not be available before construction commenced. Risk Response Work separated out from contract works to be undertaken as advance construction so as to isolate any potential delays Unsuitable allowance of 10% of earthworks quantity and 20% of drainage excavation allowed in tender Schedule of Rates. 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. 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

Page 5

27/03/01

MR635 Old Windsor Road & MR184 Windsor Road - Suunnyholt Road to Merriville Road - Detailed Estimate Report

Appendix A
Detailed Estimate

DtEsRpt.doc

27/03/01

Project Estimate Summary Sheet


Project: Reconstruction of Old Windsor Road/Windsor Road Sunnyholt Road to Caddies Creek - 4 lanes (1.0km), Caddies Creek to Merriville Road - 6 lanes (1.5km) Project No: 64893 Item Estimate (excluding % 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 2 (d) Community Relations 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) - Infrastructure - earthworks 5 (b) - Infrastructure - pavements 5 (c) - Infrastructure - structures 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 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 21% $0 $8,000 $4,000 $0 $12,000 $5,499,309 $0 $48,000 $24,000 $0 $72,000 $31,618,854 0% $8,730,525 $7,535,220 $1,237,600 $78,120 $17,581,465 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% $1,746,105 $1,507,044 $0 $247,520 $15,624 $3,516,293 $10,476,630 $9,042,264 $0 $1,485,120 $93,744 $21,097,758 67% $2,785,000 $49,300 30% 20% 20% 30% $835,500 $9,860 $0 $845,360 $3,620,500 $59,160 $0 $3,679,660 12% $4,675,000 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% $935,000 $0 $0 $0 $935,000 $5,610,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,610,000 18% $445,000 $50,500 $26,040 $150,000 $671,540 20% 20% 20% 30% 22% $89,000 $10,100 $5,208 $45,000 $149,308 $534,000 $60,600 $31,248 $195,000 $820,848 3% stage 1 complete, stage 2 in progress 20 % of Client Rep costs for whole of project $181,000 $90,200 $26,040 $297,240 10% 20% 20% 14% $18,100 $18,040 $5,208 $41,348 $199,100 $108,240 $31,248 $338,588 1%
Draft Concept designprovided/REF almost complete

Prepared by: Peter Letts

Date: 27 March 2001 Contingency Estimate

Estimate Type: Detail Design % of Total Estimate Comments/Assumptions

Amount

(including contingency)

20 % of Client Rep costs for whole of project .

Included in 3(a) Included in 2(b)

$4,675,000

$2,834,300

Based on pavement (185mm leanmix/150mm AC)

60 % of Client Rep costs for whole of project

$40,000 $20,000

$60,000 $26,119,545

Total Amount Project Management Client Representation $1,737,120 $156,240

% of Total Estimate 5.5% 0.49%

Reality checks: 1. Cost/ km 2. Cost/lane km 3. Cost/m3 earthworks 4. Cost/m2 pavement 5. Cost/m2 deck area (Bridges)

$11.71 M $2.18 M $30.42 $139.97

2.7 km 14.5 km 44640 m3 64600 m2

project estimate summary sheet.XLS summary

Detailed Estimate Project: MR 635 Old Windsor Road/Windsor Road Sunnyholt Road to Merriville Road City of Blacktown Sunnyholt to Caddies Creek - 4 lanes, Caddies Creek to Merrivile - 6 lanes Item A A1 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 . B B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 . C C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 . D D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 D11 D12 D13 D14 D15 D16 D17 D18 G1P2 G1P2 . E E1 E2 E3 E4 . F G1P1 G1P1 F2 R71P2 F4 R161P6 G36P1 G36P1 G1P1 G1P1 . G Provision for Traffic 0.85% Preliminary Construction Site offices and facilities (cont 1) Site offices and facilities (cont 2) Project signs Property Adjustments - access road Control surveys Remove existing fencing Building condition reports (cont 1) Building condition reports (cont 2) Site monitoring - Aboriginal (cont 1) Site monitoring - Aboriginal (cont 2) 0.38% Item Item No Item Item Metre Each Each Item Item Subtotal 10000 10000 5000 10000 50000 15 350 350 2500 2500 1 1 3 1 1 1080 8 8 1 1 10000 10000 15000 10000 50000 16200 2800 2800 2500 2500 $121,800 Community Relations Community consultn. for planning and dItem Community liaison during construction Item Political events (announcements and opItem Newsletters - print & deliver Item Subtotal 0.47% 100000 20000 5000 5000 1 1 2 4 100000 20000 10000 20000 $150,000 Utility Adjustments Electrical - adjust poles Sunnyholt Electrical - lighting to intersections Electrical - adjust poles Windsor Telstra - adjust 600pr Telstra - adjust 2400pr Telstra - adjust optical fibre Telstra - adjust pits Telstra - raise pit at Sam Riley Gas - adjust regulator Gas - adjust services (160mm PE) Water - road crossing (900mm) Water - road crossing (450mm) Water - road crossing (250mm) Water - road crossing (450mm) Water - road crossing (450mm) Water - road crossing (600mm) Optus - adjust cable/fibre Optus - adjust pit Protect utilities(cont 1) Protect utilities (cont 2) 8.80% Item Item Item Metre Metre Metre No Item Item Metre Metre Metre Metre Metre Metre Metre Metre Item Item Item Subtotal 10000 200000 10000 300 600 1000 30000 30000 150000 100 1250 800 600 800 800 1000 500 30000 10000 10000 5 3 15 500 1000 500 5 1 1 40 60 60 40 40 40 40 200 1 1 1 50000 600000 150000 150000 600000 500000 150000 30000 150000 4000 75000 48000 24000 32000 32000 40000 100000 30000 10000 10000 $2,785,000 Property Affects Acquisition - previous Cadastral survey and plans Acquisition - Muir Acquisition - Villaworld Acquisition - James Ruse Hotel 14.76% Item Item Item Item Item Subtotal 3900000 75000 500000 100000 100000 1 1 1 1 1 3900000 75000 500000 100000 100000 $4,675,000 Detail Design and Documentation Road, drainage and water quality desig Item Enviromental management plan Item Pavement design/geotech Item Detail Design - PMS/Misc Item Document preparation Item Traffic signal advice and review Item Roadscape & urban design Item Landscape design Item Signposting design Item Subtotal 1.41% 250000 5000 75000 40000 20000 10000 20000 20000 5000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 250000 5000 75000 40000 20000 10000 20000 20000 5000 $445,000 Description Concept Development Field survey and data acquisition Concept design Estimating and economic analysis Value management study Flora and fauna study Heritage study Noise study Environmental appraisal (EIS or REF) Environmental Assessment Report Geotechnical appraisal Misc previous costs Unit 0.57% Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Subtotal 20000 50000 0 5000 0 0 0 35000 15000 5000 51000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20000 50000 0 5000 0 0 0 35000 15000 5000 51000 $181,000 Rate $ Quantity Amount $

Detail estimate.xls detail estimate

G10P1 G10P2 G10P1 G10P2 . H R41P1 R44P1 R44P2 R44P3 R44P5 R44P6 R44P4 R49P1 R41P1 R44P1 R44P2 R44P3 R44P5 R44P6 R44P4 R49P1 . I R11P2 R11P4 R11P5.1 R11P5.2 R11P5.3 R11P5.4 R11P5.5 R11P5.6 R11P5.7 R11P5.8 R11P5.9 R11P7.1 R11P7.2 R11P7.3 R11P7.4 R11P7.5 R11P7.6 R11P7.7 R11P7.8 R33P1 R33P2 R33P3.1 R33P3.2 R33P5 R33P8 R15P1.1 R15P1.2 R15P1.3 R15P1.4 R11P2 R11P4 R11P5.1 R11P5.2 R11P5.3 R11P5.4 R11P5.5 R11P5.6 R11P5.7 R11P5.8 R11P5.9 R11P7.1 R11P7.2 R11P7.3 R11P7.4 R11P7.5 R11P7.6 R11P7.7 R11P7.8 R33P1 R33P2 R33P3.1 R33P3.2 R33P5 R33P8 R15P1.1 R15P1.2 R15P1.3 R15P1.4 I1

Provision of signs, barriers (cont 1) Provision for traffic switches (cont 1) Provision of signs, barriers (cont 2) Provision for traffic switches (cont 2)

Item Item Item Item Subtotal 10.03% Ha Cu M Cu M Cu M Cu M Cu M Cu M Cu M Ha Cu M Cu M Cu M Cu M Cu M Cu M Cu M Subtotal 10.93% Cu M Cu M Metre Metre Metre Metre Metre Metre Metre Metre Metre Each Each Each Each Each Each Each Each Cu M Each Metre Metre Cu M Each Metre Metre Metre Metre Cu M Cu M Metre Metre Metre Metre Metre Metre Metre Metre Metre Each Each Each Each Each Each Each Each Cu M Each Metre Metre Cu M Each Metre Metre Metre Metre Item

100000 35000 100000 35000

1 1 1 1

100000 35000 100000 35000 $270,000

Earthworks Clearing and grubbing Top soil stockpiling Earthworks - cut to fill Earthworks - import Selected sub-base Earthworks - cut to spoil Unsuitable Verges Clearing and grubbing Top soil stockpiling Earthworks - cut to fill Earthworks - import Selected sub-base Earthworks - cut to spoil Unsuitable Verges

8000 18 20 35 50 30 35 80 8000 18 20 35 50 30 35 80

6.6 12830 11000 8500 7920 1500 1500 1500 8.8 15000 16650 5290 13440 1700 1700 1500

52800 230940 220000 297500 396000 45000 52500 120000 70400 270000 333000 185150 672000 51000 59500 120000 $3,175,790

Drainage Excavate for stormwater pipes/pits Unsuitable Pipes - 225 dia Pipes - 375 dia Pipes - 450 dia Pipes - 525 dia Pipes - 600 dia Pipes - 675 dia Pipes - 750 dia Pipes - 825 dia Pipes - 900 dia Gully pit S01 Gully pit SAS Gully pit SA2 Gully pit SA3 Median pit Gully pit SF Headwalls Centrifugal drop structure Excavate for trench drains Flat batter outlets Corrugated drainage pipe - 100mm Slotted filter strip Type S sand filter material Cleanouts K & G Type SA K & G Type SF K & G Type SO K & G Type SM Excavate for stormwater pipes/pits Unsuitable Pipes - 225 dia Pipes - 375 dia Pipes - 450 dia Pipes - 525 dia Pipes - 600 dia Pipes - 675 dia Pipes - 750 dia Pipes - 825 dia Pipes - 900 dia Gully pit S01 Gully pit SAS Gully pit SA2 Gully pit SA3 Median pit Gully pit SF Headwalls Centrifugal drop structure Excavate for trench drains Flat batter outlets Corrugated drainage pipe - 100mm Slotted filter strip Type S sand filter material Cleanouts K & G Type SA K & G Type SF K & G Type SO K & G Type SM Caddies Creek Culvert

85 85 125 135 155 190 200 215 235 245 260 2000 2000 2100 2300 1800 2000 2000 120000 35 270 12 15 45 150 45 30 45 25 85 85 125 135 155 190 200 215 235 245 260 2000 2000 2100 2300 1800 2000 2000 120000 35 270 12 15 45 150 45 30 45 25 400000

3790 750 55 715 55 145 75 280 215 70 275 45 1 4 2 8 2 2 1 310 2 195 5100 215 150 285 2630 1710 140 3790 750 55 715 55 145 75 280 215 70 275 45 1 4 2 8 2 2 1 330 2 200 5450 230 185 2390 2940 0 125 1

322150 63750 6875 96525 8525 27550 15000 60200 50525 17150 71500 90000 2000 8400 4600 14400 4000 4000 120000 10850 540 2340 76500 9675 22500 12825 78900 76950 3500 322150 63750 6875 96525 8525 27550 15000 60200 50525 17150 71500 90000 2000 8400 4600 14400 4000 4000 120000 11550 540 2400 81750 10350 27750 107550 88200 0 3125 400000

Detail estimate.xls detail estimate

I2 . J R82P1 R82P2 R82P3 R101P1 R116P3.1 R116P3.2 R116P3.3 R116P6 R173P1.1 R173P1.2 R82P1 R82P2 R82P3 R101P1 R116P3.1 R116P3.2 R116P3.3 R116P6 R173P1.1 R173P1.2 J1

RHIC Culvert

Item Subtotal 23.79% Cu M Sq M Sq M Sq M Sq M Sq M Sq M Cu M Sq M Sq M Cu M Sq M Sq M Sq M Sq M Sq M Sq M Cu M Sq M Sq M Item Subtotal 0.00% Sq M Subtotal 1.78% Item Each Each Each Sq M Sq M Sq M Sq M Sq M Sq M Item Item Each Each Each Sq M Sq M Sq M Sq M Sq M Sq M Item Subtotal 3.59% Each Each Metre Each Each Metre Metre Each Each Metre Sq M Sq M Each Each Each Cu M Metre Each Each Each Metre Each Each Metre Metre Each Each Metre

460000

460000 $3,462,095

Pavements Leanmix subbase Finish & cure subbase Surface debonding Cold Milling - 40mm deep AC20 - 70mm deep AC20 - 70mm deep AC14 - 45mm deep AC20 Footpath - 75mm thick Median & Misc paving - 100mm thick Leanmix subbase Finish & cure subbase Surface debonding Cold Milling - 40mm deep AC20 - 70mm deep AC20 - 70mm deep AC14 - 45mm deep AC20 Footpath - 75mm thick Median & Misc paving - 100mm thick AC overlay by Asset

170 5 4 10 20 20 15 310 35 50 170 5 4 10 20 20 15 310 35 50 203000

5940 24770 24770 1590 24480 24490 24950 64 4050 1570 10300 42925 42925 1590 36615 39625 39625 0 3520 1855 1

1009800 123850 99080 15900 489600 489800 374250 19840 141750 78500 1751000 214625 171700 15900 732300 792500 594375 0 123200 92750 203000 $7,533,720

K G1P5 . M G36P2 R1P1 R1P3 R1P6 R162P1 R162P2 R162P4 R162P6 R162P9 R162P10 R162P20 G36P2 R1P1 R1P3 R1P6 R162P1 R162P2 R162P4 R162P6 R162P9 R162P10 R162P20 . N R131P1 R131P2 R132P1 R132P2.1 R132P2.2 R132P3 R132P5 R132P8.1 R132P8.2 R145P5 R145P6 R141P15 R142P2 R142P3 R143P1 RS10P1 RS10P2 G1P4 R131P1 R131P2 R132P1 R132P2.1 R132P2.2 R132P3 R132P5 R132P8.1 R132P8.2 R145P5

Structures Retaining walls - temporary

100

15

1500 $1,500

Environmental Facilities Site Monitoring Sedimentation control basin Sedimentation control trap Removal of sediment traps Spray weeds with herbicide Retopsoiling less than 3 to 1 batter Seed drilling Retopsoiling more than 3 to 1 batter Hydroseeding Straw mulching Watering Site Monitoring Sedimentation control basin Sedimentation control trap Removal of sediment traps Spray weeds with herbicide Retopsoiling less than 3 to 1 batter Seed drilling Retopsoiling more than 3 to 1 batter Hydroseeding Straw mulching Watering

20000 15000 150 60 1 5 4 5 2 2 1500 20000 15000 150 60 1 5 4 5 2 2 1500

1 1 62 62 23170 22660 22660 515 515 515 1 1 1 62 62 23170 22660 22660 515 515 515 1

20000 15000 9300 3720 23170 113300 90640 2575 1030 1030 1500 20000 15000 9300 3720 23170 113300 90640 2575 1030 1030 1500 $562,530

Traffic Management and Safety Install guide posts Remove guide posts Remove safety barriers Remove TT terminals Remove MELT terminals Post & rail safety barriers Wire rope safety barrier Construct MELT terminal Construct TT terminal Pavement markings - lines Pavement markings - transverse Pavement markings - symbols Install raised pavement markers Remove raised pavement markers Signposting Excavation for RTA cableways Install conduits for cableways Traffic Signals Install guide posts Remove guide posts Remove safety barriers Remove TT terminals Remove MELT terminals Post & rail safety barriers Wire rope safety barrier Construct MELT terminal Construct TT terminal Pavement markings - lines

100 50 15 250 350 85 120 3500 2000 3 35 35 6 3 500 35 55 150000 100 50 15 250 350 85 120 3500 2000 3

25 25 100 2 2 55 1050 1 1 8340 110 11 415 20 35 515 2440 1 25 25 100 2 2 55 1050 1 1 8340

2500 1250 1500 500 700 4675 126000 3500 2000 25020 3850 385 2490 60 17500 18025 134200 150000 2500 1250 1500 500 700 4675 126000 3500 2000 25020

Detail estimate.xls detail estimate

R145P6 R141P15 R142P2 R142P3 R143P1 RS10P1 RS10P2 G1P4 . O O1 O2 . P P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 . Q Q1

Pavement markings - transverse Pavement markings - symbols Install raised pavement markers Remove raised pavement markers Signposting Excavation for RTA cableways Install conduits for cableways Traffic Signals

Sq M Sq M Each Each Each Cu M Metre Each Subtotal 0.13%

35 35 6 3 500 35 55 150000

110 11 415 20 35 515 2440 2

3850 385 2490 60 17500 18025 134200 300000 $1,138,310

Project Finalisation Handover to asset management Item Post construction evaluations and audit Item Subtotal Project Management Project management - concept develop Item Project management - detail design Item Project management - community liaisoItem Project management - property and util Item Project management - construction Item Project management - handover and m Item Subtotal Client Representation Overheads - Client Services DirectorateItem Subtotal

10000 30000

1 1

10000 30000 $40,000

4.73% 90200 50500 50600 49300 1237600 20000 1 1 1 1 1 1 90200 50500 50600 49300 1237600 20000 $1,498,200

0.41% 0.005 $26,039,945 130200 $130,200 17.35% 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 $181,000 $445,000 $4,675,000 $2,785,000 $150,000 $121,800 $270,000 $3,175,790 $3,462,095 $7,533,720 $1,500 $562,530 $1,138,310 $40,000 $1,498,200 $130,200 18100 89000 935000 835500 30000 24360 54000 635158 692419 1506744 300 112506 227662 8000 299640 26040 $5,494,429 -

. R R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 . Project total (2000/01$) . Construction total . Project total (Out turn$) Contract 1 - Sunnyholt Road to Caddies Creek Contract 2 - Caddies Creek to Merriville Road 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 in 1999/00 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 Compiled 27-Mar-01 $32,711,000 $7,802,712 $10,386,582 $19,518,894 $31,664,574 Contingencies Contingency - Concept development Item Contingency - Detail design and docum Item Contingency - Property affects Item Contingency - Utility adjustments Item Contingency - Community relations Item Contingency - Preconstruction activitiesItem Contingency - Provision for traffic Item Contingency - Earthworks Item Contingency - Drainage Item Contingency - Pavements Item Contingency - Structures Item Contingency - Environmental facilities Item Contingency - Traffic safety and manag Item Contingency - Project finalisation Item Contingency - Project management Item Contingency - Overheads Item Subtotal

Detail estimate.xls detail estimate

MR635 Old Windsor Road & MR184 Windsor Road - Suunnyholt Road to Merriville Road - Detailed Estimate Report

Appendix B
Concept Design Plan

DtEsRpt.doc

27/03/01

A
CHAPTER0

P P E N D I X

7.7

VERIFICATION CHECKLIST

(This page intentionally left blank)

(This page intentionally left blank)

A
CHAPTER 0

P P E N D I X

7.8

ESTIMATE APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE FORM

(This page intentionally left blank)

(This page intentionally left blank)

C
CHAPTER0

H A P T E R

PROJECT COMPLETION FEEDBACK

8.1 Summary
RTAs requirements for project completion feedback in relation to estimating are under review. In the meantime, reference should be made to the Procedure RTA-CSD-PMS-PR-P-84 entilied PostCompletion Project Review. A copy of the procedure is contained in Appendix 8.1

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Project Completion Feedback

8-1

(This page intentionally left balnk)

Chapter 8 Issued December 2001

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

A
CHAPTER0

P P E N D I X

8.1

PROCEDURE RTA-CSD-PMS-PR-P-84

(This page intentionally left blank)

Post-Completion Project Review

Revision History
Version 1.0 1.1 Date 4/1999 11/1999 Description

First Issue
Changed to reflect revised organisational structure Changed to reflect RTA Project management Guidelines

Checked K Verma K Verma J Farrell PMO

Approved R H Brown R H Brown

2.0

10/2000

R H Brown

Document No: RTA-CSD-PMS-PR-P-84

Issue 2.0

Page 1 of 4

Post-Completion Project Review

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.

Document No: RTA-CSD-PMS-PR-P-84

Issue 2.0

Page 2 of 4

Post-Completion Project Review

ACTIONS
1. Performance Against Project Objectives
The Project Manager is responsible for undertaking a review with the Clients Representative of overall project performance against the Clients 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.

Document No: RTA-CSD-PMS-PR-P-84

Issue 2.0

Page 3 of 4

Post-Completion Project Review 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 Contractors RTA Form 517 Performance Report on Consultants and Professional Service Performance Report on Construction Industry Contractors

ATTACHMENTS for issue with this procedure


Nil
Document No: RTA-CSD-PMS-PR-P-84 Issue 2.0 Page 4 of 4

C
CHAPTER0

H A P T E R

CONTRACT VARIATIONS

9.1 Summary
This section sets down the processes for the valuation of contract variations.

9.2 Contract Variations


The principles utilised in the preparation of pre-contract estimates can also be adopted when assessing major variations prior to them being proposed by RTA, and in assessing variation requests from a contractor. The pricing of a variation must be prepared in a way that is explicit and consistent and which takes into account the method of construction and the circumstances and timing during which the variation occurs. A sound pricing exercise can only be performed when each operation or item is analysed into its simplest elements and the cost estimated methodically on the basis of factual information. This pre-supposes that the variation cannot be priced by reference to contract rates. The pricing of a major variation may have important and far-reaching effects. The extent of the impact that a major variation may have on a project has to be considered and taken into account and reflected in the final value of the variation. The most frequent consequence of the introduction of contract variations is that the contractor will make a claim for additional time and cost. Where appropriate, it is a good variation pricing practice to take this into account at the time of agreeing the variation. It must also be noted that a variation may also result in the deletion of certain parts of the works and a possible reduction in the time required to perform the variation.

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Contract Variations

9-1

One of the fundamental principles of pricing contract variations is that, in common with the pricing of the original estimate, the items or operations are priced net, that is, it should initially be an assessment of direct costs without any adjustments for indirects, overheads and profit. The calculation of indirects, overheads and profits should only be addressed when the direct cost pricing has been completed and the additional time involved (if any) can be calculated for incorporation in the cost.

9-2


Chapter 9 Issued December 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

C
CHAPTER0

H A P T E R

10

ESTIMATING SOFTWARE

10.1 Summary
This chapter provides general information only on some proprietory software 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 applications of 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 Australian Construction Industry includes the following; MS Excel and similar spreadsheets Build Soft CATS Candy Piece 7 (Wintendor) Estimator V6

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Estimating Software

10 - 1

Expert Estimator

10.2.1 Microsoft Excel and Similar Spreadsheets


Spreadsheets are used by some smaller contractors together in some instances with custom macros. However, this approach to estimating is not generally preferred by most professional estimators due to the ease of making errors and the lack of custom built features which assist in the assembly of large estimates.

10.2.2 Buildsoft
Buildsoft is used by commercial building companies and is good for take offs and subcontract work but has not found widespread application in civil engineering projects.

10.2.3 CATS
CATS is an in-house estimating system developed by the Leighton Group of companies and is not commercially available, although there are a number of clones available in the market, the most popular of which is Expert Estimator.

The following five packages all provide the level of detail required for large civil estimates as well as the ability to develop nested group resources (sometimes called assemblies or clusters). This is an extremely useful feature in civil engineering estimating.

10 - 2


Chapter 10 Issued December 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

10.2.4 Candy
Candy was developed by the South African company Murray & Roberts over 10 years ago and is available in the market place in Australia. It is used by a number of large civil engineering companies.

Candy has all the features required to build up a complex estimate. It is, however, quite complex to use (due to the large number of features in the package) and requires a good deal of training to be used efficiently.

10.2.5 Price 7 (Wintender)


Price 7 is used by at least one of the major Australian civil engineering companies. It is a South African product and has recently been upgraded from the DOS version to a MS-Windows version called Wintender. The package is simple to use and little training is required. Suppliers are: HKC Systems Tel +27 12 665 000 e-mail charmainer@hkc.co.za

10.2.6 Benchmark Roadworks Strategic Estimator


Benchmark Roadworks Strategic Estimator is a powerful tool for the Strategic estimator. This feature of the benchmark software, written in co-operation with RTA, enables the estimation of projects progressively from Strategic, to Concept and detailed all in the one package. Strategic and Concept estimates, including quantities and rates, are generated automatically when the user answers just a few
RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001 Estimating Software

10 - 3

questions. When the estimate needs to be further refined the user simply answers more questions to refine the estimate further. Benchmark is Windows based and is multi-user. It has all the features required for advanced estimating and is easy to learn and use. Import and export facilities to and from other packages, especially programming packages like Microsoft Project, further increase the utility of the program. The package is fully supported and is continually being developed. Further information is available from: Benchmark Estimating Software PO Box 992, Nowra, NSW 2541 02 4423 0566 Fax 02 4423 3228

Tel

Email: benchmark@benchmark-estimating.com.au

10.2.7 Estimator V6
Estimator V6 is the latest in this well known estimating program originally developed for contractor John Holland. Version 6 is now a MS-Windows program, although it does not look very different from its DOS predecessors. Export and Import from other application is possible and the package has the ability to build complex nested group resources. Estimator Version 6 is easily learned and is supplied by: Constructive Computing Services International 346 St Georges Road Thornby Victoria 03 9808 3233

Tel

10 - 4


Chapter 10 Issued December 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

10.2.8 Expert Estimator


Expert Estimator is a clone of the CATS software used by Leighton Contractors. In mid 2000, Version 3 was released which for the first time had full MS-Windows features. Expert Estimator is a very large program with many options and the ability to handle the largest projects. Much more has been done on version 3 since its release and it is now being used extensively in the industry. Despite the number of options and reports which can be obtained from the package it is fairly simple to use. A powerful computer is required to make the most of the package.

Expert Estimator is supplied by: Protect Cost Engineering PO Box 122 Broken Ridge QLD 4017 07 3261 6088 www.costengineer.com.au

Tel url

10.3 Risk Quantification Software


Software commonly used in the analysis and quantification of risk (in a Monte Carlo analysis) includes: Crystal Ball @Risk Analytica

Crystal Ball and @Risk both use Microsoft Excel spreadsheets for input and for output of results. Analytica uses a diagrammatic system for input and output. Advantages and disadvantages of each of these products in shown in Table 10.1.
RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001 Estimating Software

10 - 5

Product Crystal Ball

Advantages 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

Disadvantages 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 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

@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

10 - 6


Chapter 10 Issued December 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0

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

Table 10.1 Risk Quantification Software

RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0 Issued December 2001

Estimating Software

10 - 7

(This page intentionally left blank)

10 - 8


Chapter 10 Issued December 2001 RTA Project Estimating Edition 1, Revision 0