Expert Panel on Cost Estimating

Recommendation Report of Federal Advisory Committee 10733

October 2002



Table of Contents
Foreword
1.0	Executive Summary						1
2.0	Introduction							5
2.1	Expert Panel on Cost Estimating Creation and Composition	5
2.2	Charter and Duties						6
2.3	Acknowledgments							7
3.0	Activities and Accomplishments-2001				9
3.1	Meetings							9
4.0	Recommendations							13
5.0	Appendices							19
5.1	Charter								19
5.2	June 26 and 27, 2001 Agenda					23
5.3	June 26 and 27, 2001 Summary Meeting Notes			25
		Attendees						25
		FEMA Presenters and Technical Support			25
		Members of the General Public Attending			26
		Background						26
		Introductory Remarks					27
		Objectives						27
		The Public Assistance Program				28
		The Grant Acceleration Program (GAP)			28
		General Discussion					29
		The Cost Estimating Format for Large Projects (CEF)	30
		General Discussion					31
		Plan for Day #2						31
		Recap of Day #1						31
		General Discussion					32
		Review of How the Panel will Operate			37
		Structure of the Panel Recommendation Report 
		to the Director						37
		General Discussion					38
		Recap of Technical Requirements				38
		General Public Comments					39
		Closing Administrative Comments	39
5.4	September 26, 2001 Agenda					41
5.5	September 26, 2001 Summary Meeting Notes			43
		Attendees						43
		Panel Members						43
		FEMA Technical Support					43
		Members of the General Public				44
		Background						44
		Introductory Remarks					45
		ASPE Presentation Comparing the CEF to ASPE's 	
		Level 3 Estimate					46
		General Discussion					47
		FEMA Presentation Comparing the CEF to ASPE's 
		Level 3 Estimating Approach				47
		General Discussion of FEMA's Presentation		49
		Conclusion and Suggestions				53
		Engineering and Design Services (Curves A & B) Status	54
		Expert Panel Comments on the Recommendation Report 
		to Director						55
		General Discussion					56
		Next Steps						57
		Closing Comments by Panelists and Members of 
		the General Public					58
		Closing Administrative Comments				59
5.6	Recommended Cost Estimating Procedure				61
5.7	Panel Members' Biographies					71


Foreword

The Expert Panel on Cost Estimating (Panel) for the Public Assistance (PA) Program 
concludes the evaluation phase of its charter with this Recommendation Report to the 
Honorable Joe M. Allbaugh, Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA).  Congress directed FEMA to establish the Panel in the Disaster Mitigation Act 
of 2000, Public Law 106-390.  The Panel's charter includes evaluating the PA program's 
methodology for estimating the cost of repairing or replacing a public or private nonprofit 
facility, recommending procedures for estimating the cost of repairing or replacing a 
facility consistent with industry practices, and setting reasonable floor and ceiling 
percentages related to the estimated cost in support of the PA Program.
The Panel endorses the Cost Estimating Format (CEF) for Large Projects and 
recommends its use to estimate large project costs for all types of infrastructure damage 
resulting from all disaster types.

The Panel acknowledges the excellent work that FEMA has accomplished in improving 
its cost estimates to repair or replace publicly owned facilities.  The recommendations 
included in this report will improve upon the efforts that have already been initiated 
under the CEF.  It must be remembered, however, that the recommendations are merely a 
beginning.  To improve the likelihood of developing reliable cost estimates within the 
floor and ceiling thresholds requires good-faith collaboration among Federal, State and 
local partners when identifying and documenting the eligible scope of work to repair or 
replace a damaged facility.  With this in mind, the Panel's recommendations should 
improve the quality of estimating large project costs and budgeting for Federal disasters, 
and decrease the need for supplemental obligations, in turn lowering administrative costs 
and freeing disaster personnel for deployment to other disasters.


___________/s/___________		___________/s/___________
Laurence W. Zensinger, Co-Chair		Albert R. Ashwood, Co-Chair
Federal Advisory Committee - 			Federal Advisory Committee -
Expert Panel on Cost Estimating		Expert Panel on Cost Estimating


1.0	Executive Summary

Federal Advisory Committee 10733 (the Expert Panel on Cost Estimating for the Public 
Assistance Program) is required by Congress to provide the Director of the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) with its recommended cost estimating 
procedures.  If approved by the Director, FEMA will promulgate regulations taking into 
account the recommendations of the Panel.

Also, it is the intent of Congress that the Panel shall function on a continuing basis in 
accordance with the authorizing statute unless terminated by appropriate legislative 
authority.  Therefore, the Panel will meet not later than one year after the date of 
promulgation of regulations by FEMA, three years after that date and at the end of each 
two-year period thereafter.  The purpose of the meetings is to examine the 
appropriateness of the selected cost estimating procedures adopted by FEMA and to 
periodically submit a report to Congress on the Panel's findings.

The Panel met the complex objectives posed by its Charter.  We evaluated the Public 
Assistance (PA) Program's methodology for estimating the cost of repairing, restoring, 
reconstructing, or replacing a public facility or private non-profit facility and thoroughly 
reviewed the Cost Estimating Format (CEF) for Large Project - Instructional Guide, 
Version 2 (November 1998) and CEF-related training materials.  We analyzed, discussed, 
and selected procedures for estimating the cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or 
replacing a facility consistent with industry practices, and we established reasonable floor 
and ceiling percentages related to the estimated cost.  The Panel also determined the level 
of technical expertise required to uniformly apply the selected cost estimating 
methodology and estimating instrument to maximize accuracy and national applicability.
The Panel has determined that the CEF is appropriate for the PA Program and recognizes 
that the CEF conforms to accepted estimating practices.  It is the consensus of the Panel 
that FEMA is utilizing a peer-reviewed system for estimating construction costs, which 
will produce good cost estimates for the large project grants that it manages.


To foster additional development of the selected cost estimating procedure, the Expert 
Panel on Cost Estimating presents the following recommendations for implementation:

1.	Employ the cost estimating methodology and worksheet contained in the 
Cost Estimating Format (CEF) for Large Projects-Instructional Guide, 
Version 2 (November 1998) to estimate large project costs associated with 
permanent work under the Public Assistance Program.  The recommended 
cost-estimating procedures are summarized at Section 5.6 (Appendices) of 
this report.

2.	Establish reasonable floor and ceiling thresholds for project cost estimates at 
plus or minus 10%.

3.	Make use of the greatest degree of design and/or construction documentation 
detail for developing large project cost estimates when using the CEF.

4.	Emphasize the following process steps to the large project formulation team, 
before using the CEF:

	- Early identification of personnel with discipline-specific, technical expertise is 
required to more accurately develop a complete scope of work before CEF 
estimates are generated and should include experienced Cost Estimators.
	- The individual assigned to develop the estimate is a component part of the 
discipline-specific, technical expertise comprising the Federal, State and local 
team assigned to the formulation of the large project.
	- To improve the likelihood of realizing reliable cost estimates within the floor 
and ceiling thresholds requires good-faith collaboration among Federal, State 
and local partners when identifying and documenting the eligible scope of 
work to repair or replace a damaged facility.
	- It is best to take a little more time preparing a CEF estimate at the outset.  This 
improves the chances that it will not have to be revisited in the future.
	- Excepting for hidden damages and differing site conditions, working with the 
applicant early on in the disaster response and recovery process is essential to 
discussion and agreement on the scope of eligible damages and could be quite 
helpful in reducing the need for change orders.
	- Whenever possible, base costs captured in Part A of the CEF are to be derived 
from local cost estimating resources and cost data.
	- Work activities not itemized in the CEF estimate shall be eliminated from the 
Project Worksheet (such as the deduction for insurance recovery), before the 
CEF estimated cost and the eligible cost of the actual work are compared.  
Only when like items of work exist, is the plus or minus 10% threshold 
between the CEF estimated cost and the eligible cost of the actual work 
calculated.

	5.	Set up resident CEF training at the Emergency Management Institute of 
FEMA's National Emergency Training Center.

	6.	Revise the lower-bound percentile for Factor C.1 (Preliminary Engineering 
Analysis Stage) to 7% within the CEF worksheet and the CEF Instructional Guide to more accurately 
reflect the risk in bidding simple projects.

	7.	Obtain cost data for each large project estimated by means of the CEF and 
analyze the floor and ceiling threshold result.

	8.	Adjust Engineering and Design Services Curves (A and B) as soon as 
updated data is received from the American Society of Civil Engineers 
Committee on Professional Practice.

	9.	Make periodic revisions and incorporate lessons-learned from previous 
disasters into the CEF Instructional Guide and/or worksheet, to better 
ensure that user guidance remains current.

	It is the sense of the Panel at the conclusion of this phase of the Federal Advisory 
Committee process that a better balance between estimated and actual costs among the 
engineering, cost-estimating and construction disciplines could be attained through the 
use of the CEF.

	The Panel also acknowledges and expresses its recognition to the people involved in the 
development of the CEF.  They did an exemplary job.
	Finally, the Panel wishes to underscore its conviction that the recommendations and the 
selected cost estimating procedure discussed in the pages that follow can and should be 
implemented in a way that is wholly consistent with FEMA's commitment to support 
State and local governments and their citizens when disasters overwhelm them.
	
	
	2.0	Introduction
	
	2.1	Expert Panel on Cost Estimating Creation and Composition
	The Expert Panel on Cost Estimating (the Panel) was created by Congress with the 
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.  Section 205(e) of this Act mandated that the Panel 
include representatives from the construction industry and State and local government.  
In fulfilling the technical and representation requirements of the Act, the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency invited professional organizations to nominate 
candidates for membership on the Panel.  Panel members were required to have expertise 
in design, construction and cost estimating of roads, water control facilities, buildings, 
utility systems, and recreational facilities, and represent various geographical regions of 
the country.  The Federal Emergency Management Agency (also the Designated Federal 
Official) and the National Emergency Management Association co-chair the Panel.  Panel 
members (see Section 5.7 - Panel Members' Biographies) and the professional 
organizations they represent are:
	Albert R. Ashwood	(National Emergency Management Association)
	Robert L. Edelblut, Sr.	(National Society of Professional Engineers)
	Claudette R. Ford	(American Public Works Association)
	R.A. Kai 'opua Fyfe	(American Society of Professional Estimators)
	Charles F. Harper	(American Institute of Architects)
	G. Michael Hoover	(American General Contractors of America)
	Jon A. Oshel	(National Association of County Engineers)
	Norman H. Roush	(American Association of State and Highway 
Transportation Officials)
	Laurence W. Zensinger	(Federal Emergency Management Agency)
	
	2.2	Charter and Duties
	The Expert Panel On Cost Estimating for the Public Assistance (PA) Program (the 
"Panel") - a Federal Advisory Committee
	The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Public Law 106-390 [Section 205(e)(3)] directs the 
President, acting through the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA), to establish a methodology, consistent with industry practices, for estimating 
the cost to repair or replace large projects, to include the establishment of reasonable 
floor and ceiling thresholds expressed as a percentage of the total eligible project cost.  
FEMA will base the methodology on recommendations made by a panel of technical 
experts representing the construction industry and state and local governments.  Director 
Joe M. Allbaugh established the Panel as an Advisory Committee on April 1, 2001, 
pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).  As required by FACA 
regulations, the Panel's charter was filed with House and Senate oversight committees, 
the General Services Administration, and the Library of Congress; and was formally 
reviewed and adopted by the Panel on June 26, 2001.  See Appendix 5.1 for the Charter 
of the Expert Panel on Cost Estimating for the Public Assistance Program.
	The Federal Advisory Committee charter for the Panel includes the following objectives, 
responsibilities, and scope of duties:
	?	Evaluate the Public Assistance (PA) Program methodology for estimating the cost 
of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing a public facility or private non-
profit facility on the basis of the design of the facility as the facility existed 
immediately before the disaster, and in conformity with codes, specifications, and 
standards (including floodplain management and hazard mitigation criteria 
required by the President or under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act [16 U.S.C. 
3501 et. seq.]) applicable at the time the disaster occurred.
	?	Review the Cost Estimating Format (CEF) for Large Project, Version 2 
(November 1998) materials and determine if the CEF is appropriate for the PA 
Program.
	?	Determine the level of technical expertise required to uniformly apply the 
recommended cost estimating methodology and instrument to maximize accuracy 
and national applicability.
	?	Submit a Recommendation Report to the Director of FEMA containing a 
description of the Panel's activities; an evaluation of FEMA's cost estimating 
procedures and any activities to revise and update these products; and the Panel's 
recommendations, consisting of:
	1.	procedures for estimating the cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, 
or replacing a facility consistent with industry practices, and
	2.	establishing reasonable floor and ceiling percentages related to the 
estimated cost.
	2.3	Acknowledgments
	In its work over the past year, the Panel has been privileged to have the professional 
advice and counsel of James D. Duffer, Civil Engineer and Executive Officer of the 
Expert Panel on Cost Estimating for the Public Assistance Program, FEMA, and James 
A. Walke, Chief of the Public Assistance Branch, FEMA.  The Panel also acknowledges 
the assistance it has received from FEMA's Technical Assistance Contractors: 
Nationwide Infrastructure Support Technical Assistance Contractors, Fluor Federal 
Services, and Emergency Response Program Management Consultants.
	
	
	
	3.0	Activities and Accomplishments-2001
	3.1	Meetings
	The Panel convened two times during 2001.  The meetings were held as follows:
	June 26-27, Arlington, VA
	September 26, Washington, DC
	See appendices 5.2 and 5.4, respectively, for the meeting agendas.
	3.1.1	June Meeting-Arlington, Virginia
	A notice was published in the Federal Register (Volume 66, Number 102) on Friday, 
May 25, 2001 announcing the first meeting of the Panel, which was held in Arlington, 
Virginia on June 26 and 27, 2001 and was open to members of the general public.
	The purpose of the meeting was to provide Panel members with: 1.) An overview of the 
Stafford Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et. seq., Public Law 93-288, and the 
provision of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Public Law 106-390, that directs FEMA 
to establish a methodology, consistent with industry practices, for estimating the cost to 
repair, restore or replace eligible public facilities that are damaged during a major 
disaster; 2.) A briefing on the Grant Acceleration Program that FEMA employed during 
the Northridge Earthquake; and 3.) A briefing on the Cost Estimating Format for Large 
Projects that FEMA has used since the inception of the redesigned Public Assistance 
Program.  Discussion was also held regarding the Public Assistance Program and cost 
estimating issues for roads and bridges, water control facilities, buildings, utility systems, 
and recreational facilities.  Finally, the Panel considered current and future requirements 
for making recommendations on both a cost estimating methodology and reasonable floor 
and ceiling percentages related to the estimated cost by the first quarter of calendar year 
2002.
	Specific objectives of the meeting were to:
?	Look for better ways to estimate large projects.
?	Identify reasonable floor and ceiling thresholds that can be achieved using the 
Panel's selected cost-estimating methodology, which will also provide a level of 
assurance to Congress that FEMA can prepare reliable estimates.  This could be 
deemed as the level of error in cost estimating that is tolerable.
?	Develop a work plan on how the Panel will operate and determine the type of 
technical assistance that is required to support the Panel.
?	In order to attain these goals, FEMA expressed its desire that discussions among 
Panel members be open, frank and objective.  Technical Assistance Contractors 
(TACS) were available to provide assistance for all Panel meetings.
	Regarding the establishment of reasonable floor and ceiling percentages relating to the 
modification of eligible cost provision of the law, Section 205(e)(2) of the Disaster 
Mitigation Act of 2000 provides:
	(A) ACTUAL COST GREATER THAN CEILING PERCENTAGE OF ESTIMATED 
COST.
	In any case in which the actual cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or 
replacing a facility under this section is greater than the ceiling percentage established 
under paragraph (3) of the cost estimated under paragraph (1), the President may 
determine that the eligible cost includes a portion of the actual cost of the repair, 
restoration, reconstruction, or replacement that exceeds the cost estimated under 
paragraph (1).
	(B) ACTUAL COST LESS THAN ESTIMATED COST.
	(i) GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO FLOOR PERCENTAGE OF ESTIMATED 
COST.
	In any case in which the actual cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or 
replacing a facility under this section is less than 100 percent of the cost estimated 
under paragraph (1), but is greater than or equal to the floor percentage established 
under paragraph (3) of the cost estimated under paragraph (1), the State or local 
government or person receiving funds under this section shall use the excess funds to 
carry out cost-effective activities that reduce the risk of future damage, hardship, or 
suffering from a major disaster.
	(ii) LESS THAN FLOOR PERCENTAGE OF ESTIMATED COST.
	In any case in which the actual cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or 
replacing a facility under this section is less than the floor percentage established 
under paragraph (3) of the cost estimated under paragraph (1), the State or local 
government or person receiving assistance under this section shall reimburse the 
President in the amount of the difference.
	Therefore, if the actual cost of a project is less than the estimated cost, the applicant may 
use a portion of the underrun on cost effective mitigation activities.  If actual costs are 
less than the estimated costs by more than a certain percentage, the amount of the 
underrun that is over the percentage must be reimbursed to FEMA.  If actual costs exceed 
estimated costs and are less than a certain percentage, the applicant absorbs the cost.  If 
actual costs exceed the estimated costs by more than a certain percentage, the amount 
over the percentage may be eligible, provided the applicant identified additional eligible 
damage during construction and FEMA approved the revised scope of work.
	The Panel chose -10% and +10%, respectively, for the floor and ceiling thresholds.  The 
selected thresholds best represent engineering and construction industry standards for 
estimating project costs.  States will continue to disburse funds to applicants as they 
complete the work.  The law will allow FEMA and the applicants to better estimate the 
actual cost to repair, or replace damaged facilities and programmatically close applicants 
and disasters sooner than is the case now.
	This provision does not affect Section 422, Simplified procedure, and Section 423, 
Appeal of assistance decisions, of the Stafford Act.
	The Summary Meeting Notes for the first meeting of the Expert Panel on Cost Estimating 
for the Public Assistance Program are found at Appendix 5.3.
	3.1.2	September Meeting-Washington, District of Columbia
	A notice was published in the Federal Register (Volume 66, Number 167) on Tuesday, 
August 28, 2001 announcing the second meeting of the Panel, which was held in 
Washington, District of Columbia on September 26, 2001, and was open to members of 
the general public.
	Specific objectives of the meeting were to:
	?	Compare and contrast the Cost Estimating Format for Large Projects for the 
Public Assistance Program with the estimating methods used by the American 
Society of Professional Estimators (ASPE).
	?	Discuss and select the procedures for estimating the cost of repairing, restoring, 
reconstructing, or replacing a facility consistent with industry practices.
	?	Determine the level of technical expertise and training guidance required for 
uniformly applying the selected cost estimating procedures.
	?	Discuss the proposal to update Engineering and Design Services Curves (A and 
B).
	?	Discuss the format, tone and content of the Panel's Recommendation Report to 
the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
	The Summary Meeting Notes for the second meeting of the Expert Panel on Cost 
Estimating for the Public Assistance Program are found at Appendix 5.5.
	Additional information about the Expert Panel on Cost Estimating for the Public 
Assistance Program (Federal Advisory Committee 10733) may be found on FEMA's web 
pages located at http://www.fema.gov/rrr/pa/exppanel.shtm.  This site and its Internet 
links to CEF-related content, include the Panel's Summary Meeting Minutes, 
presentations made before the Panel by subject matter experts, the Panel's 
Recommendation Report to Director Joe M. Allbaugh, and the Cost Estimating Format 
for Large Projects - Instructional Guide, Version 2 (November 1998) and CEF-related 
training materials.
	
	
	4.0	Recommendations	
	With unanimous endorsement and support, the Panel respectfully submits the following 
recommendations:
	1.	The Panel officially endorses the Cost Estimating Format (CEF) for Large 
Projects-Instructional Guide, Version 2 (November 1998) as the cost estimating 
methodology and instrument of the Public Assistance Program.  The recommended 
cost-estimating procedures are summarized at Section 5.6 (Appendices) of this 
report.
	Our endorsement of the CEF is predicated upon the following observations:
	?	The CEF mandates the use of the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) 
Masterformat and estimates are prepared with the CSI number system.
	?	The format of the CEF is designed to serve the unique requirements of the PA 
Program.
	?	The organized approach of the CEF promotes consistency in documentation.
	?	The CEF has the capability to import and incorporate cost data from other 
estimating programs.
	?	The design of the CEF is flexible and therefore superior to inflexible 
estimating systems required by some other agencies.
	2.	The Panel recommends plus and minus 10% as the reasonable floor and ceiling 
thresholds for project cost.
	These thresholds best represent accepted engineering and construction industry 
standards for estimating project costs.  The methods of predicting the final probable 
cost during project planning are different from methods employed during the final 
design and construction work stages.  Cost estimates formulated during the planning, 
predesign and early design work stages require careful examination by the cost 
estimator.  Cost estimates formulated during final design work and construction 
typically rely on itemizing all the elements of work and applying the respective unit 
prices.  This survey method is more reliable provided the item count and the unit 
prices are accurate.  It is generally accepted that the identification of costs should 
become more precise as the project moves from planning and predesign (cost 
planning) into advanced design (cost estimating) stages.
	3.	The Panel recommends that close attention be made to the degree of 
documentation detail required for developing CEF estimates, as follows:
	?	Use the highest level of detail that can be made available from design and/or 
construction information.
	?	When available, the use of lump sum competitive bids is discouraged in favor 
of itemized unit price bids.  If used, lump sum bids require 100% full-detailed 
and complete drawings and the work activities are to be itemized.  In either 
case, estimate accuracy depends upon the completeness of the bid documents.
	?	The realistic starting point for developing a cost estimate for a disaster-
damaged facility is at an American Society of Professional Estimators (ASPE) 
Level 3.  An ASPE Level 3 estimate (or Design Development / Budget 
Appropriation level) is prepared from not less than 25 percent complete 
preliminary design drawings and draft specifications.  The purpose of this 
estimate is to establish probable costs within the range of available 
information.
	?	In order to attain the plus or minus 10 percent threshold accuracy proposed for 
a CEF estimate, the Public Assistance process should progress to a level of 
detail corresponding to an ASPE Level 5.  An ASPE Level 5 estimate (or 
Construction Documents / Contract Drawings / Definitive level) is prepared 
from not less than 90 percent complete design drawings and specifications.  
This level shows the probable project cost.
	4.	The Panel reiterates the following points for the purposes of emphasizing their 
importance to the large project formulation team before using the CEF and 
underscores that these points either exist and are supported within the CEF for 
Large Projects - Instructional Guide, Version 2 (November 1998) or the Public 
Assistance Program's process steps:
	?	Early identification of personnel with discipline-specific, technical expertise is 
required to more accurately develop a complete scope of work before CEF 
estimates are generated and should include experienced Cost Estimators.
	?	The individual assigned to develop the estimate is a component part of the 
discipline-specific, technical expertise comprising the Federal, State and local 
team assigned to the formulation of the large project.
	?	To improve the likelihood of realizing reliable cost estimates within the floor 
and ceiling thresholds requires good-faith collaboration among Federal, State 
and local partners when identifying and documenting the eligible scope of 
work to repair or replace a damaged facility.
	?	It is best to take a little more time preparing a CEF estimate at the outset.  This 
improves the chances that it will not have to be revisited in the future.
?	Excepting for hidden damages and differing site conditions, working with the 
applicant early on in the disaster response and recovery process is essential to 
discussion and agreement on the scope of eligible damages and could be quite 
helpful in reducing the need for change orders.
?	Whenever possible, base costs captured in Part A of the CEF are to be derived 
from local cost estimating resources and cost data.
	?	Work activities not itemized in the CEF estimate shall be eliminated from the 
Project Worksheet (such as the deduction for insurance recovery) before the 
CEF estimated cost and the eligible cost of the actual work are compared.  
Only when like items of work exist is the plus or minus 10% threshold 
between the CEF estimated cost and the eligible cost of the actual work 
calculated.
	5.	The Panel recommends that existing CEF training offered at Disaster Field Offices 
through FEMA's Disaster Field Training Organization (DFTO), be also made a 
resident course offering of the Emergency Management Institute of FEMA's 
National Emergency Training Center.
	The target audience for the existing DFTO training includes Project Officers and 
other Technical Specialists that work with applicants to develop large project cost 
estimates.  The proposed resident offering should also include State personnel with 
large project cost estimating responsibilities at the DFO.  The Panel recognizes that it 
could take a few years to implement this recommendation and State participation is 
normally based on the availability of State funds for training purposes.  Additionally, 
CEF training should be offered to FEMA's Public Assistance Coordinators, Public 
Assistance Officers and management officials responsible for disaster operations, and 
thus be made aware of the benefits-and limitations-of using the CEF.  The Panel's 
recommendations, when implemented, will have a major impact on the selection of 
Project Officers and Technical Specialists in the future.
	Additionally, and whenever possible, validate a cost estimators experience and ability 
to generate productivity rates (i.e., create estimates on a quantity times material, labor 
hour and equipment cost format).  For example, qualification testing could be 
accomplished before and after CEF training for this purpose.
	6.	The Panel recommends that the lower-bound percentile for Factor C.1 
(Preliminary Engineering Analysis Stage) be revised within the CEF worksheet 
and the CEF Instructional Guide to more accurately reflect the risk in bidding 
simple projects at this time.
	The preliminary engineering analysis stage is a design-phase scope contingency that 
allows for the fact that projects often contain more elements when they are fully 
designed than could have been anticipated earlier in the design process.  While the 
Panel recognizes the importance of characterizing the state of the project design 
development at the time that the CEF is prepared, it is the sense of the Panel that the 
lower-bound percentile of 15% (see Appendix 5.5) does not accurately depict the 
actual risk of bidding a simple project.  The lower-bound percentile is more 
realistically on the order of 7%, at this time.
	7.	The Panel recommends that cost data be obtained for use in analyzing results for 
each large project estimated by means of the CEF.
	The Public Assistance Officer forwards a "CEF-Large Project Report" to FEMA 
Headquarters that includes estimated and actual post-construction costs among other 
information elements related to CEF use.  To facilitate FEMA's efforts in collecting 
this information, the Panel encourages FEMA to incorporate CEF data collection 
efforts into its existing Public Assistance module of the National Emergency 
Management Information System (NEMIS).  This will allow FEMA the ability to 
standardize information reporting requirements, facilitate project cost-data 
development, and to electronically access data for analysis.  The Panel recognizes that 
it will take at least a few years to procure sufficient data to determine how well the 
CEF performs.
	The Panel emphasizes that CEF data collection from NEMIS (or another system yet 
to be defined) be designed for comparison of like work activities between the final 
CEF estimated costs and the eligible costs of actual work.  It is critical that work 
activities not itemized in the CEF estimate be eliminated from the Project Worksheet 
(such as the deduction for insurance recovery), before the CEF estimated cost and the 
eligible cost of the actual work are compared.  Only when like items of work exist, is 
the plus or minus 10% threshold between the CEF estimated cost and the eligible cost 
of the actual work calculated.
	8.	The Panel recommends that Engineering and Design Services Curves (A and B) be 
updated as soon as practicable when received from the American Society of Civil 
Engineers Committee on Professional Practice.
	There was general consensus among the Panelists that the 1975 curves still being 
used by FEMA are lower than current engineering and construction costs.  This was 
not important before CEF when Architectural and Engineering (A&E) costs were 
adjusted to reflect actual eligible expenses.  However, under CEF, a better estimate of 
A&E costs is necessary.
	9.	Make periodic revisions and incorporate lessons-learned from previous disasters 
into the CEF Instructional Guide and/or worksheet, to better ensure that user 
guidance remains current.
	
	
	5.0	Appendices
	
	5.1	Charter
	
	FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
	CHARTER OF
	EXPERT PANEL ON COST ESTIMATING
	FOR THE
	PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
	
	ESTABLISHMENT:
	
	The Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in accordance 
with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390, Section 205e(3)), has 
established the Expert Panel on Cost Estimating for the Public Assistance Program 
(hereinafter referred to as the Panel).  The Panel is established as an Advisory Committee 
pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix I, and the 
Presidential Reorganization Order Number 3 of 1978.
	
	OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF DUTIES:
	
	1.	The objective of the Panel is to evaluate the Public Assistance (PA) program's 
methodology for estimating the cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or 
replacing a public facility or private nonprofit facility-
	
	a.	on the basis of the design of the facility as the facility existed immediately 
before the disaster; and
	
	b.	in conformity with codes, specifications, and standards (including 
floodplain management and hazard mitigation criteria required by the 
President or under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3501 et. 
seq.)) applicable at the time at which the disaster occurred.
	2.	The Panel shall make recommendations to the Director concerning-
	
	a.	procedures for estimating the cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, 
or replacing a facility consistent with industry practices; and
	
	b.	reasonable floor and ceiling percentages related to the estimated cost.
	
	3.	In carrying out its responsibilities, the Panel shall:
	
	a.	Review the Cost Estimating Format for Large Projects (CEF) materials 
and determine if the CEF methodology is appropriate for the PA program.
	
	b.	Determine what level of technical expertise is required to uniformly apply 
the recommended estimating methodology and instrument to maximize 
their accuracy and national applicability.
	
	4.	Not later than one year after the date of promulgation of regulations by FEMA 
(based on item 2 above), three years after that date, and at the end of each two-
year period thereafter, the Panel shall submit to Congress a report on the 
appropriateness of the cost estimating procedures.
	
	5.	The Panel may consult Federal, State, or local government agencies or private 
firms and individuals; and conduct research as necessary to meet its objectives.
	
	6.	The Panel may make interim comments and recommendations to the Director 
whenever there is an indicated urgency to do so in fulfilling its duties.
	
	7.	Members will attend Panel meetings and review and approve meeting minutes.
	
	8.	The Panel functions solely as an advisory body and will comply fully with the 
provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
	
	9.	FEMA will provide technical support, including research, to the panel.
	
	MEMBERS OF THE PANEL:
	
	The Panel shall be comprised of up to ten members.  The members of the Panel will 
include technical experts from the construction industry, State government, local 
government, and academia, and representatives from the National Emergency 
Management Association and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
	The Director shall appoint a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson from the Panel 
membership.
	
	The FEMA Office of the General Counsel will brief Panel members on Federal ethics 
rules, employment and financial interests, and criminal conflict of interest statutes.
	
	MEETINGS:
	
	Depending on funding availability and scheduling considerations, the Panel shall meet up 
to two times in Federal fiscal year 2001 and one time in Federal fiscal year 2002.
	
	Thereafter, the Panel will meet not later than one year after the date of promulgation of 
regulations by FEMA, three years after that date and at the end of each two-year period.  
The purpose of these meetings is to conduct an examination of the appropriateness of the 
cost estimation procedures developed during the meetings conducted in fiscal years 2001 
and 2002, and to prepare and submit a report to Congress on the Panel's findings.
	
	ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS:
	
	The members of the Panel shall be reimbursed for eligible invitational travel and 
subsistence expenses incurred in the performance of their duties as members of the Panel.
	
	FEMA's Infrastructure Division, Response and Recovery Directorate will provide 
administrative support for the Panel.
	
	Panel meeting minutes shall be maintained and shall be subject to the Freedom of 
Information Act.  All records pertaining to the Panel shall be maintained in the office of 
FEMA's Infrastructure Division, Response and Recovery Directorate.
	
	The annual operating cost associated with supporting the Panel's functions (including all 
direct and indirect expenses) are estimated to be:
?	$252,000 in contractor support and approximately -person year for FY 2001 and
?	$98,000 in contractor support and approximately -person year for FY 2002.

The annual operating cost associated with supporting the Panel's functions thereafter is 
estimated to be $25,000 per year.




DURATION:

The Panel shall function on a continuing basis in accordance with the authorizing statute 
unless terminated by appropriate legislative authority.  In compliance with Section 
14(b)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, a Charter shall be filed upon the 
expiration of each successive two-year period following the date of the enactment of the 
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Public Law 106-390, on October 30, 2000.


_____________________/s/______________________	April 1, 2001
Joe M. Allbaugh		Date
Director
Federal Emergency Management Agency

5.2	June 26 and 27, 2001 Agenda


1ST MEETING OF THE EXPERT PANEL ON COST ESTIMATING
FOR THE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

CRYSTAL CITY MARRIOTT
1999 JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY
SALONS B AND C
ARLINGTON, VA. 22202


June 26, 2001	(Tuesday)
  9:00	am	Welcome and Introductions	Laurence Zensinger
	Co-Chair and Designated Federal Official
	and
	Albert Ashwood
	Co-Chair
  9:30	am	Administrative and Review Agenda	Laurence Zensinger
  9:45	am	Review Charter	Laurence Zensinger
		Albert Ashwood
10:45	am	Overview of Public Assistance Program	James Walke
		and Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
  1:00	pm	Grant Acceleration Program	Randolph Langenbach and
(GAP) Presentation	Theodore Van Kirk
  2:30	pm	Break
  3:00 	pm	Cost Estimating Format (CEF)	J. David Duffer and
for Large Projects Presentation	Brian Leap

  4:30	pm	Questions & Answers, and	Expert Panel
	Comments from Members of the General Public
  5:00	pm	Adjourn	Co-Chairs

June 27, 2001	(Wednesday)
  8:00	am	Panel Convenes	Co-Chairs
Objectives:	J. David Duffer

1.	Further consideration and discussion of GAP and CEF.
2.	Discuss current estimating techniques employed in the engineering 
and construction industry.
3.	Develop work plan for how the Panel will operate.
4.	Develop the best approach for fulfilling the charter of the Panel.
5.	Identify the technical requirements necessary to support the Panel, 
and make work assignments.
6.	Finalize work plan for how the Panel will operate (and make Panel 
member assignments).
7.	Schedule the next Panel meeting.

  4:30	pm	Questions & Answers, and	Expert Panel
	Comments from Members of the General Public
  5:00	pm	Adjourn	Co-Chairs

5.3	June 26 and 27, 2001 Summary Meeting Notes





Federal Emergency Management Agency

Summary Meeting Notes from First Meeting
of the Expert Panel on
Cost Estimating for the Public Assistance Program

June 26 and 27, 2001

Crystal City Marriott
Salons B and C
1999 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, Virginia

ATTENDEES
Panel Members
Laurence Zensinger 	Panel Co-Chair and Designated Federal Official, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Albert Ashwood	Panel Co-Chair, National Emergency Management 
Association
Robert L. Edelblut, Sr., PE	National Society of Professional Engineers
Claudette Ford	American Public Works Association
Kai 'opua Fyfe, CPE	American Society of Professional Estimators
G. Michael Hoover	Associated General Contractors of America
Norman H. Roush, PE	American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials

FEMA Presenters and Technical Support
David Duffer			FEMA
Randolph Langenbach		FEMA
Brian Leap			Fluor Federal Services
Jenny Novillo			DMJM
Ken Rock			Earth Tech
Ted Van Kirk			Nationwide Infrastructure Support Technical 
Assistance Contractors
James Walke			FEMA
Members of the General Public Attending
Miguel Becerril			Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration
Martha Braddock		(no affiliation provided)
Roni Brohammer 		American Public Works Association
Graeme R. Cox, PE		California Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Jonathan Glazier 		National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
Susan Healey			FEMA
Mike Hirsch 			FEMA
Bob Hobart			Fluor Federal Services
Melissa Howard		FEMA
Jonathan Hoyes		Nationwide Infrastructure Support Technical 
Assistance Contractors
MK McDonough		FEMA
Donald Pilon			International Association of Emergency Managers
William Quade			DMJM
Kristin C. Robinson		National Emergency Management Association
James Strange 			American Public Power Association
Howard Stronach		FEMA
James Wayne			FEMA
Amy Weinhouse 		FEMA
Day #1 (Tuesday, June 26, 2001)
Background
Section 205e(3) of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390), directs the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to establish a methodology, consistent 
with industry practices, for estimating the cost to repair, restore, or replace eligible public 
facilities that are damaged during a major disaster.  To accomplish this objective, FEMA 
is directed to establish an expert panel (Panel) consisting of industry, Sate, and local 
representatives to develop cost estimating procedures.  The Panel is subject to the 
requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).  Accordingly, the 
Director of FEMA signed the Panel's charter on April 2, 2001.  The charter was filed 
with the General Services Administration's Office of the Committee Management 
Secretariat pursuant to FACA regulations.  A notice was subsequently published in the 
Federal Register (Volume 66, Number 102) on Friday, May 25, 2001 announcing the first 
meeting of the Panel, which was held in Arlington, Virginia on June 26 and 27, 2001 and 
was open to members of the general public.
The purpose of the meeting was to provide Panel members with an overview of the 
Public Assistance Program and FEMA's efforts to better estimate the cost to repair large 
projects.  See Appendix A for the agenda.  These efforts include the development of the 
Cost Estimating Format for Large Projects (CEF) and the pilot testing of the Grant 
Acceleration Program.  FEMA believes the CEF is a reliable cost estimating tool, which 
was independently peer-reviewed by the American Society of Civil Engineers.  The Panel 
should consider the merits of the CEF.
Introductory Remarks
?	Mr. Zensinger opened the meeting at 9:00 AM, by welcoming participants and 
inviting everyone to introduce themselves to the group.  He stated that the Panel 
would meet again in September 2001, and if needed, a third meeting would be 
scheduled for October 2001.  A Panel Recommendation Report is due by January 
2002.  The report will be used to publish a final rule regarding the selected cost 
estimating methodology and floor and ceiling thresholds, in the Federal Register 
by November 2002.  He stated that members of the general public may speak at 
the advisory committee meeting when the floor is open for this purpose from 4:30 
PM until the meeting is adjourned, each day the Panel convenes.
?	Mr. Zensinger noted that FEMA does not have lots of "psychological lead time" 
to plan for projects after a disaster.  FEMA's goal is to fund projects quickly and 
accurately and closeout projects as soon as possible.
?	The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 will make it possible for FEMA to get 
money to applicants faster.
?	Grants to applicants for the repair to pre-disaster condition of facilities damaged 
by a disaster are authorized under the Stafford Act.  This Act also defines a 
threshold, adjusted annually for inflation ($50,600 for FY01), which in turn, 
defines a large project.
	Objectives
	Specific objectives of the meeting were to:
?	Look for better ways to estimate large projects.
?	Identify reasonable floor and ceiling thresholds that can be achieved using the 
Panel's selected cost-estimating methodology, which will also provide a level of 
assurance to Congress that FEMA can prepare reliable estimates.  This could be 
deemed as the level of error in cost estimating that is tolerable.
?	Develop a work plan on how the Panel will operate and determine the type of 
technical assistance that is required to support the Panel.
?	In order to attain these goals, FEMA desires that discussions among Panel 
members are open, frank and objective.  Technical Assistance Contractors 
(TACS) will be available to provide assistance for all three meetings of the Panel.
	The Public Assistance Program
	James Walke gave a presentation on FEMA's Public Assistance (PA) Program and the 
impacts of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 on the PA program.  See Appendix B for 
the presentation.
	The PA Program provides supplemental Federal disaster grant assistance for the repair, 
replacement, or restoration of disaster-damaged, publicly owned facilities and the 
facilities of certain Private Non-Profit (PNP) organizations.  The Federal share of 
assistance is not less than 75% of the eligible cost for emergency measures and 
permanent restoration.  The State determines how the non-Federal share (up to 25%) is 
split with the applicants.  Presentation topics included the application process, eligible 
applicants, eligible work, project requirements, types of cost data used by FEMA, 
average project cost, and average project cost for large projects.
	The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K) amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, which authorizes Federal assistance to State and 
local governments in carrying out their responsibilities to alleviate the suffering and 
damage, that result from disasters.  Presentation topics included DMA2K's immediately 
effective provisions on the PA Program, consisting of alternate projects, private non-
profit organizations, Small Business Administration, definitions, notification to Congress, 
and public notice.  The DMA2K's delayed provisions on the PA Program were also 
presented and consisted of reduced Federal share for repetitive damages, management 
costs, and cost estimating procedure.
	The Grant Acceleration Program (GAP)
	Randolph Langenbach gave an overview on FEMA's GAP.  See Appendix C for the 
presentation.
	GAP was initiated following the Northridge Earthquake where large, complex buildings 
were damaged.  Damages were not apparent in many cases during the initial inspection, 
and there were many cases of serious underlying structural damages that required 
sophisticated engineering analysis.  GAP was established as a voluntary program to allow 
participants to receive a fair and reasonable fixed budget amount up-front, thereby 
accelerating the normal funding procedure for large projects.  This reduced FEMA 
involvement during construction, reduced applicant administrative costs, and allowed 
FEMA to more quickly settle claims for large, complex building projects.  Presentation 
topics included the purpose of GAP, the prior cost-estimating situation and results, the 
value of the CEF and GAP process, early CEF development, and the objectives of CEF.
	Ted Van Kirk gave an overview on the origins, development and verification of GAP.  
See Appendix C for the presentation.
	Applicants' desire negotiated settlements, as is done in the insurance industry, without 
having to request supplements for changes in scope or when a need for additional funding 
is discovered.  GAP was set up as a voluntary program that offered incentives to 
applicants in the use of project savings generated by the program, a known project 
budget, and less FEMA oversight and involvement in the project.  For the Northridge 
Earthquake, 86 applicants accepted GAP offers.  Validation efforts undertaken to date 
show that GAP is working.  Presentation topics included the origins of GAP, how to 
make GAP work, a comparison of GAP pilot implementation during the Northridge 
earthquake, the concept and development of GAP, the test case phase and results of GAP, 
statistics on pilot closeout efforts to date, and GAP challenges.
	General Discussion
	There was a general discussion among Panel members following the GAP presentation.
	Concerns were expressed about the possibility of applicants being under-funded under 
GAP.  In response, a Northridge applicant's management of repairs under normal FEMA 
procedures and GAP procedures was shared with the Panel.  Under normal procedures, 
there is no incentive to make cost effective decisions; rather there is a tendency to wait 
for a FEMA supplemental before proceeding with changed conditions.  The GAP 
provided a budget for the repairs that the applicant managed carefully.  This resulted in 
expeditious repairs and quick cost effective decisions when changes were identified.  It 
was reiterated that FEMA has not adopted GAP.  It has been used only in a pilot test for 
the Northridge earthquake.  Regardless of the methodology used, FEMA make funds 
available immediately to begin the recovery process.  However, in the case of large 
complex building projects damaged by an earthquake, the architect/engineering process is 
complex and lengthy.  The process requires much interaction between FEMA, the 
applicant, and the engineers and designers.  It has been FEMA's experience that GAP 
should provide incentives that reduce administrative costs.
	The Cost Estimating Format for Large Projects (CEF)
	Brian Leap gave an overview relating to the peer review that was conducted on FEMA's 
CEF.  See Appendix D for the presentation.
	CEF is a standardized format for estimating the cost of large projects.  It was initially 
developed following the Northridge Earthquake recovery effort and was applied to large, 
complex building projects only.  The revised, version received a peer review by the 
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) in 1998.  The CEF is in the form of a 
workbook that provides a uniform method for preparing estimates and is explained in 
much greater detail in the Cost Estimating Format for Large Projects - Instructional 
Guide (Version 2), November 1998.  Presentation topics included the focus of the peer 
review, the committee, the process, the conclusions and recommendations; the 
background of the CEF; a description of what CEF is and is not; and the advantages and 
future goal of CEF.
	David Duffer gave a detailed presentation on the CEF.  See Appendix D of the 
presentation.
	The revised version of the CEF can be used for all types of infrastructure damage, in all 
types of disasters.  This version has been tested against data from large project closeouts 
and undergone a peer review by an independent group of industry experts who evaluated 
the methodology, substantiated component factors, and recommended improvements 
necessary to apply the CEF nationally.
	The CEF provides a worksheet, called Part A, that allows the user to estimate base 
construction costs.  The user then applies a series of factors (Parts B through H) that 
represent non-construction costs.  These expenses can reasonably be expected to occur 
because they are construction-related costs usually encountered during the course of 
construction.  These factors are applied to the Part A base construction costs to estimate 
the total cost of completing the project.  This "forward-pricing" methodology provides an 
estimate of the total eligible funding at the beginning of the project.  This estimate is used 
to obligate funds for the project and allows the applicant to more accurately manage the 
budget with a greater degree of confidence.
	Presentation topics included a description of the CEF process and how it fits into the 
Public Assistance Program, each of the factors that makes up the CEF, how the factors 
are to be applied to the base construction cost estimate, and how to use the CEF 
workbook in the estimate calculation.  Teams using the CEF will be comprised of 
professional engineers and cost estimators who have been in responsible charge of 
important engineering work or have extensive experience in the construction industry.
	General Discussion
	Following the CEF presentation, Panel members expressed their general consensus that 
the CEF is a sound tool and discussion focused on how to make the CEF better.
	The applicant needs to be involved in developing the cost estimate and all parties 
involved in the project must have a clear understanding of the scope of work, and that 
scope of work remains consistent throughout the life of the project.  Whatever we do and 
decide on, it has to be simple and transparent.  It must be clear to a lot of people who will 
be involved in the review process.  While the Project Officer is responsible for 
developing the Project Worksheet in a multi-disciplinary environment, Panel members 
agreed that the lead estimator is responsible for developing the actual construction cost 
estimate and should participate in the on-site review of the project conducted by the 
Project Officer.  However, cost estimates need to be built to get an end product; there is 
no simple solution.  Cost estimating is a "build as you go" procedure.
	Deployment of multidisciplinary teams has helped in the recovery process for the 
Northridge and Nisqually earthquakes.  In general, applicants have been pleased with the 
quality of estimates.  Using an integrated, seamless process where everyone works 
together as a team has worked well.  This can be accomplished by using applicant-
provided cost data wherever possible.  We are clearly further along in the recovery 
process now in Nisqually using the CEF, than we would have been without it.
	Panel members agreed that the factors used in the CEF are acceptable, and acknowledged 
that some project savings and overruns will still be realized in the real world as a result of 
open market conditions.
	Plan for Day #2
	It was agreed on day 2 that the Panel would think about the CEF factors and floor and 
ceiling thresholds, and what else the Panel needs to accomplish.
	The meeting adjourned at 5:00 PM.
	Day #2 (Wednesday, June 27, 2001)
	The meeting commenced at 8:00 AM.
	Recap of Day #1
	The Panel agreed that CEF is a reliable tool and that the GAP was an appropriate 
program, but we should not focus further on the GAP in our discussions.  Relating to the 
CEF, we need to talk more about factors and what categories the factors are in.
	General Discussion
	Following the recap, Panel members focused their discussion on the adoption of a cost-
estimating methodology that requires expertise:
?	A higher level of expertise (multi-disciplinary) is needed at the early stages of 
developing an estimate.  The challenge is to make this process as easy as possible.
?	Additional details for the estimate are filled in later using the same format and 
approach.
?	Factors will be valid and applicable if the core estimate is sound.
?	Whenever possible, FEMA should use local professionals who are familiar with 
costs in the area affected by a disaster.
?	The CEF format developed by FEMA is reliable.  The worksheet prompts people 
to think about the project and does what you require it to do.  The markups seem a 
bit high, but there is a recognized need for a standard system that must work 
around the country.
?	It's hard to mandate what people should do.  We might consider a two-phased 
approach.  It should allow changes later on in the process if complications arise or 
if new conditions are discovered.  Alternatively, FEMA could process two PWs -- 
one for initial work and architect/engineering services while the complete CEF is 
being developed.
?	Remember that we want to move the entire program in the direction of "improved 
projects" where we give the applicant money and don't have to track it further.  
This approach allows applicants to get the money and make decisions.
?	The CEF is an appropriate form, but it needs to be used with accuracy in the field.  
Applicants need it to reserve required matching funds.  A reliable estimate is 
essential.
	Panel members then focused their discussion on the CEF, its component factors, 
consideration for equipment and contents, and reasonable floor and ceiling thresholds, in 
order to fulfill the requirements of the charter:
	CEF
?	CEF should mirror, as closely as possible, standard industry methods, such as 
those used by the American Society of Professional Estimators (ASPE).  ASPE 
Committee members will be asked to help with this effort.  If we remove the 
disaster factor, we can view the effort as simply giving a developer an estimate 
for a job.  The estimate should be complete, but not all the details need to be 
known.
?	CEF is an incremental-complexity instrument.  There is less-risk as more 
information becomes known and as the process moves forward.  CEF provides a 
template only; not all parts of the worksheet need to be filled in.
?	It will prove difficult to find people that meet FEMA's criteria for estimators.  
FEMA must provide appropriate in-house training for estimators so people can be 
pre-qualified with the right type and level of expertise to work on a disaster.  The 
GS-11 level currently specified is too low.  An alternative could be 
implementation of the estimating contractor approach, where a lead estimator 
would be required to possess the necessary Public Assistance Program expertise.  
This person could provide program guidance to other estimators less skilled in the 
provisions of the PA Program, while the cost-estimating cadre is being developed.
?	It is important to get decision making down to the local level.  FEMA and States 
do not build buildings - we write checks.  The locals do all the work.  Our job 
should be to get the money to them as soon as possible.  The CEF is a sound 
reference document to make sure that the right items are included in the cost 
estimate.
?	FEMA needs to do a better job educating applicants.  We need to have open 
discussions about the scope of work.  Applicants are not overly concerned about 
the role of the State in FEMA's program.
?	What we're really talking about is pre-qualification of estimators.  Certified 
Professional Estimator is a recognized qualification in the industry.  In response, 
the Panel agreed that qualified estimators are needed, but noted that becoming a 
certified estimator should not be a requirement of the job.
?	Panel members agreed that:
o	Some pre-qualification or certification is required and that a Professional 
Engineer (PE) license or Professional Estimator Certification is desired.
o	Additionally, disciplinary expertise is needed that focuses on the specific type 
of facility being estimated (e.g., bridges, buildings, etc.).
o	More expertise in the field from FEMA contract staff, as well as with full-time 
FEMA staff will be required.
	CEF Factors
?	Factors may be adjusted in the field to reflect local conditions.  Factor adjustment 
is covered on pages 10 and 11 of the CEF Instructional Guide.  It is important to 
remember that:
o	The factors in the back of the Guide are from RS Means and should be used 
only as a second or third cost data choice, only when local cost information is 
not available from the applicant.
o	We want to include as many line items in Part A as possible.  The best option 
is to get specific cost data for Parts B through H, directly from the applicant, 
only for those cases in which you are unable to otherwise line item your work 
activities in Part A, thereby eliminating consideration for most of the other 
factors (i.e., Parts B-H).  Regardless, the Public Assistance Officer (PAO) on 
each disaster is responsible for obtaining and developing this data, consistent 
with the established procedure for estimating large projects.
o	CEF is not a one-size-fits-all methodology.  It has been specifically designed 
to customize a cost estimate for each project.  Additionally a team approach or 
partnership is absolutely needed, with specialized technical expertise available 
from any member of the partnership, as required for prudent consideration for 
the facility being estimated.
	Equipment and Contents
?	For equipment and contents, we will require similar expertise as discussed above, 
but in the areas of equipment and contents (i.e., furnishings, computers, etc.).  
Contents are generally amenable to the factor approach and could be developed, 
however, unless specialized equipment is involved, such as a Magnetic Resonance 
Imaging machine at a hospital, an inventory list depicting the actual purchase 
price and the date of purchase is still preferred.  This is why FEMA's CEF was 
developed to estimate construction costs (permanent and non-permanent work) 
only.
	Proposed Floor and Ceiling Threshold for Cost Estimates
?	FEMA's general experience with CEF to date shows that:
o	For project costs of $2 to $4 million, the project range is (plus or minus) 10%.
o	For project costs less than $2 million, we've experienced cost overruns of 
more than 20%.
o	For project costs greater than $4 million, we've experienced cost underruns of 
more than 20%.
?	Our mission is to report to Congress on how we're doing.  We have two years to 
test and refine our new system.  Our goal is not to convince Congress of anything.  
The ceiling and floor thresholds will apply to large projects only at this time.
?	Applicants need to be part of the process from the outset and FEMA needs to be 
clear on the methodology.
?	We need to be explicit regarding two issues, eligibility and cost estimating.  
Eligibility is totally separate from the cost estimating process.  Applicant 
expectations may not always be realistic in the areas of eligible scope of work and 
eligible project cost.
?	Developing costs is a cooperative process.  Once everyone agrees on costs, we 
need to be able to determine the right amount and then walk away.  We also need 
to establish a cutoff date for making changes to a project.
?	We need to be careful with this.  If there is a bid of $7 million on a project that 
was estimated at $10 million, then is the underrun returned to FEMA?
?	In explanation, FEMA asked Panel members to consider two project scenarios:
1.	if a bid is $13 million, for a job estimated at $10 million
2.	if a bid is $10 million, for a job estimated at $13 million
?	After some discussion of estimates and contractor bids based on the two above 
scenarios, it was apparent that not all agreed on the correct interpretation of the 
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 relating to the establishment of ceiling and floor 
estimates.  To assist further, FEMA sketched the following illustration (that was 
subsequently generated and depicted electronically - see next page) on an easel 
pad for the consideration of Panel members.  Panel members agreed with the 
illustration and better understood the legislation.
	
?	Illustration Explanation: Floor and Ceiling Project Thresholds
	
o	For Projects greater that the ceiling of 110% of the Cost Estimate, FEMA may 
reimburse applicant for eligible work.
o	For Projects between the Cost Estimate and the 110% ceiling, the applicant 
absorbs the additional cost.
o	For Projects between the Cost Estimate and the 90% floor, the applicant uses 
the excess funds for eligible 406 hazard mitigation measures.
o	For Projects less than 90% of the Cost Estimate, the applicant reimburses 
FEMA the excess funds. 
	
?	Need to remember that in a disaster situation, contractors will be overworked and 
are likely to be charging higher rates for their services as a result of greater 
project demand.  This may be true even if it's six months after the disaster, or 
depending on the magnitude of the disaster, the duration could be even longer.
?	Panel members reached consensus and recognized that plus and minus 10% are 
reasonable floor and ceiling thresholds for project cost, as derived from 
construction industry standards.
It was understood that some projects in the $50 to $100K range could fall outside 
the threshold, but there was general agreement that the 10% number is appropriate 
and that using the same number across the board would make the program easier 
to administer.
Should certain projects be exempted on a case-by-case basis, but not as a general 
rule?  Or should the contractor be part of the partnership and be aware of FEMA's 
cost estimate?  All agreed that history shows that contractors tend to bid at or 
above the estimate amount and therefore, providing cost estimates to contractors 
would provide no immediate benefit.  Panel members agreed that the selected cost 
estimating process must allow an opportunity for project settlement right at the 
start and the establishment of a project completion date.  This last incentive helps 
an applicant to actually complete eligible project work and restore services of a 
governmental nature to the community.
Review of How the Panel will Operate
1)	Develop a work plan.
2)	Fulfill the requirements of the charter.
3)	Determine if CEF is appropriate.  Remember that Congress wants a methodology 
that we can share with applicants to make sure they get all the money they're 
entitled to.  We don't need to "sell" the plan to Congress, per se.
4)	Identify any technical assistance that may be needed.
Structure of Panel Recommendations Report to the Director
The Panel agreed that:
1)	The report will acknowledge the fine work done on the CEF.
2)	Include information on the GAP and other relevant information from the 
Northridge Earthquake.
3)	Discuss the plus and minus 10% range that has been chosen for the floor and 
ceiling thresholds.
4)	The Panel will submit a draft of the report to Laurence W. Zensinger, Panel Co-
Chair and Designated Federal Official and Albert R. Ashwood, Panel Co-Chair 
for their review and approval.  It will then go to the Assistant Director (or his 
authorized designee) of FEMA's Response and Recovery Directorate, prior to 
proceeding to Joe M. Allbaugh the Director of FEMA.  If the Director agrees with 
the recommendations, the report will be used to publish interim and final rules in 
the Federal Register for public review and comment.

General Discussion
?	Notes taken from this meeting will be distributed to Panel members.  We can then 
use those notes as a basis for making recommendations that can also be included 
in the report.
?	The Panel discussed curves A and B (used for determining the percentage of 
Engineering and Design Services for a large project) as contained within Part H of 
the CEF Instructional Guide.  The Panel reached general consensus that the 
curves are indeed outdated, and that technical support should be used to collect 
updated information needed for an update.  This information should be made 
available for the next meeting of the Panel.
Recap of Technical Requirements
1)	In order for Panel members to officially endorse FEMA's CEF on behalf of their 
respective professional organizations, the Panel directed that two comparative 
analyses be performed between FEMA's Cost Estimating Format for Large 
Projects - Instructional Guide, Version 2 (November 1998) and ASPE's Standard 
Estimating Practice, Fifth Edition (October 1998).  The first comparative analysis 
will be performed by each of FEMA's Technical Assistance Contractors (TACs) 
and the second comparative analysis by ASPE's Standards, Certification and 
Education Boards.  The results of the comparative analyses will be made available 
for Panel deliberations during their second meeting and could be used by the 
Panel to augment and/or revise FEMA's Cost Estimating Format for Large 
Projects - Instructional Guide, Version 2 (November 1998).
The independent comparative analysis will consist of:
a.	validating whether or not the CEF is parallel to ASPE's level 3 (design, 
development/budget appropriation) estimating approach.  If the CEF is not 
parallel to an ASPE level 3 estimate, say so and identify the ASPE level 
that the CEF is parallel to, and
b.	validating whether or not a CEF estimate (at an ASPE level 3) would 
provide a level of confidence commensurate with an ASPE level 5 
(construction documents/contract drawings/definitive) estimate, such that 
the CEF estimate (at an ASPE level 3) would be within the  10% floor 
and ceiling thresholds selected by the Panel.
2)	The Panel requested FEMA to contact and obtain current data from the National 
Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), the American Institute of Architects 
(AIA), and the American Consulting Engineers Counsel (ACEC) on a proposed 
update to curves A and B (used for determining the percentage of Engineering 
and Design Services for a large project) as contained within Part H of the CEF 
Instructional Guide.  This information should be made available for the next 
meeting of the Panel.
General Public Comments
?	Graeme Cox:  It is important to remember that State personnel need training too.  
It is not clear if additional guidance is forthcoming on how and when CEF should 
be used.  For example, do applicants have a choice of whether they want to use it 
or not?  In other words, if CEF is required, can applicants opt out?  Thinks it 
would be appropriate to begin a new process at the start of a disaster, rather than 
transition half way through a disaster.  (Response from FEMA:  Before CEF is 
officially adopted, regulations will be issued for public comment.  Comments will 
be responded to and, if the regulations are adopted, they will be required for 
everyone.  CEF is an estimating methodology and not a substitute for the Grant 
Acceleration Program.)
?	Randolph Langenbach:  Want to point out that a substantial change in the scope of 
work required (e.g., based on new information discovered during the recovery 
process) would drive a reevaluation of funding for the project.
?	Bob Hobart:  Training is essential.  It is done weekly at Nisqually.
?	Jonathan Hoyes:  Agree that we need to take another look at the cost curves.
?	Claudette Ford:  The report should provide a clear explanation about the benefits 
of CEF to municipalities and others.
?	Kai 'opua Fyfe:  I think we've had some appropriate discussions and interaction.  
The report should include background information in an executive summary.  It 
would make the benefits to the applicant clearer and make the whole report seem 
smoother and more holistic.  Additionally FEMA needs to develop a database of 
historical disaster related construction costs for large projects that use the 
recommended cost estimating procedure.
	Closing Administrative Comments
?	After Panel discussions, it was agreed that the next meeting will be on September 
26 and 27, 2001 (Wednesday and Thursday) in the Washington, DC area.
?	The Co-Chairs commended the Panel for being task oriented and completing the 
Panels' work in two days, rather than in three days as originally planned, and said, 
"We are impressed by your contributions and gratified that you all have 
participated in this process.  Thank you for everyone's excellent input."
The meeting adjourned at 3:00 PM.
________________________________________________________________________
I 		/s/		 (Laurence W. Zensinger, Designated Federal Official), this 
31th day of August, 2001, hereby certify that the Summary Meeting Notes and 
attachments accurately describe the matters discussed and resolutions made, by the 
Expert Panel on Cost Estimating for the Public Assistance Program.

5.4	September 26, 2001 Agenda


2ND MEETING OF THE EXPERT PANEL ON COST ESTIMATING
FOR THE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

LOEWS L'ENFANT PLAZA HOTEL
480 L'ENFANT PLAZA, S.W.
MONET IV CONFERENCE ROOM
WASHINGTON, DC 20024-2197


September 26, 2001	(Wednesday)
  8:00	am	Welcome and Introductions	Laurence Zensinger
	Co-Chair and Designated Federal Official
  8:15	am	Administrative Items & Review Agenda	Laurence Zensinger
  8:30	am	ASPE Comparative Analysis Presentation	Kai 'opua Fyfe
  9:30	am	Break
  9:45	am	FEMA Comparative Analysis Presentation	J. David Duffer
10:45	am	Panel Discussion of Presentations
12:00	pm	Lunch
  1:00	pm	Panel Discussion of Presentations Continued
  2:00	pm	Discussion Items:	J. David Duffer
1.	Recommended cost-estimating methodology.
2.	Technical expertise and training guidance.
3.	Engineering and design services (curves A and B).
4.	Recommendations Report.
5.	Additional Panel technical requirements.
6.	Schedule next Panel meeting.
  4:30	pm	Questions & Answers, and	Expert Panel
	Comments from Members of the General Public
  5:00	pm	Adjourn	Co-Chair

5.5	September 26, 2001 Summary Meeting Notes




Federal Emergency Management Agency

Summary Meeting Notes from Second Meeting
of the Expert Panel on
Cost Estimating for the Public Assistance Program

September 26, 2001

Loews L'Enfant Plaza Hotel
Monet IV Conference Room
480 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W.
Washington, DC  20042

ATTENDEES
Panel Members
Laurence W. Zensinger	Panel Co-Chair, Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA)
Robert L. Edelblut, Sr.	National Society of Professional Engineers
Claudette Ford 	American Public Works Association (APWA)
Kai 'opua Fyfe	American Society of Professional Estimators 
(ASPE)
Charles Harper	American Institute of Architects
G. Michael Hoover	Associated General Contractors of America
Jon A. Oshel	National Association of County Engineers
Norman H. Roush	American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials
FEMA Technical Support
J. David Duffer	Executive Officer of the Expert Panel on Cost 
Estimating, FEMA
James A. Walke	FEMA
Members of the General Public
Dick Buck	FEMA
Gary Dartlett	National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
Andrea Fisher	APWA
Robert Hobart	Fluor Federal Services (FFS)
Melissa Howard	FEMA
J. Brian Leap	FFS
Joseph Majewski	ASPE
Bill Manfredonia	ASPE
Melinda K. McDonough	FEMA
Jenny Novillo	Emergency Response Program Management 
Consultants (ERPMC)
Greg Ormsby	Nationwide Infrastructure Support Technical 
Assistance Consultants (NISTAC)
Beverly Perrell	ASPE
William Quade	ERPMC
Ken Rock	ERPMC
Charles Stuart 	FEMA
Background
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390), Section 406 (e), directs the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to establish a methodology, consistent 
with industry practices, for estimating the cost to repair, restore, or replace eligible public 
facilities that are damaged during a major disaster.  To accomplish this objective, FEMA 
established an expert panel (Panel), consisting of industry, State, and local representatives 
to recommend cost estimating procedures.  A charter signed by the Director of FEMA on 
April 1, 2001 was filed with the General Services Administration's Office of the 
Committee Management Secretariat, per the requirements of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (FACA).  The first meeting of the Panel was held in Arlington, Virginia 
on June 26 - 27, 2001 and was open to the public.  The second meeting of the Panel, held 
on September 26, 2001, was conducted in Washington, District of Columbia and, like the 
first meeting, was open to the public.
The purpose of the second meeting was for Panel members to compare and contrast the 
Cost Estimating Format (CEF) for Large Projects developed by FEMA with estimating 
methods used by the American Society of Professional Estimators (ASPE).  The Panel 
also selected and endorsed a cost estimating methodology and determined the level of 
technical expertise and training guidance required for uniformly applying it.  
Additionally, the Panel considered a proposed update to FEMA's Engineering and 
Design Services Curves (A and B) and the content of its Recommendation Report to the 
Director of FEMA.
Introductory Remarks
Mr. Laurence Zensinger, Panel Co-Chair opened the meeting by welcoming participants 
and noting that Mr. Albert Ashwood, Panel Co-Chair of the National Emergency 
Management Association (NEMA) was unable to attend the meeting due to other NEMA 
matters requiring his attention in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks 
upon the United States of America.  Mr. Zensinger stated that Mr. Ashwood expressed 
his personal acknowledgement and appreciation to each Panel member for their 
willingness to proceed with the peoples' business during such volatile and dangerous 
times.
Mr. Zensinger provided the Panel with a brief overview of FEMA activities at the World 
Trade Center in New York.  He also provided a review of the previous Panel meeting and 
the action items that resulted from that meeting.  In particular, he reviewed the Panel's 
request for a comparative analysis of FEMA's CEF with the cost estimating methods 
used by ASPE.  Mr. Zensinger outlined other key goals of the meeting (Attachment A):
(1)	endorse a cost estimating methodology for estimating the cost of repairing or 
replacing a facility consistent with industry practices,
(2)	discuss the level of technical expertise and training guidance required to 
uniformly apply the recommended cost estimating methodology and instrument to 
maximize their accuracy and national applicability,
(3)	discuss the proposed update to FEMA's Engineering and Design Services Curves 
(A and B) and,
(4)	discuss the Recommendation Report and draft executive summary (that would be 
prepared based on the results of the Panel meetings) to include recommendations 
to the Director concerning procedures for cost estimating.  In particular, Mr. 
Zensinger said that he wanted to talk about the tone of the report and to be sure all 
Panel members are comfortable with it.  He reminded the Panel that the overall 
objective of FEMA's effort is to use an estimating methodology that will allow it 
to cut red tape and more quickly meet the needs of applicants.
With regard to meeting protocol, Mr. Zensinger said that comments from the general 
public would be welcomed at the end of the day.  He added that in response to the Panel's 
request, there would be two presentations:
?	A presentation by America Society of Professional Estimators (ASPE) of its 
analysis of a comparison of the two methodologies; and
?	A review by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the result 
of its comparative analysis of the CEF and ASPE cost estimating methodologies.
Mr. Zensinger then welcomed Mr. Jon A. Oshel of the National Association of County 
Engineers and invited panel members to reintroduce themselves to one another.
ASPE Presentation Comparing the CEF to ASPE's Level 3 Estimate
Kai 'opua Fyfe gave a presentation on behalf of the American Society of Professional 
Estimators (ASPE) summarizing its views on the Cost Estimating Format (CEF) for 
Large Projects being used by FEMA.  Mr. Fyfe noted that, in his opinion, the CEF 
conforms with recommended estimating practices.  However, he made it clear that his 
remarks be considered preliminary, because the Board of Directors, Technical Boards 
and Standing Committees had not yet formalized the Society's findings.  National 
meetings, which had been scheduled to complete that formalization, were postponed due 
to post-9/11 travel difficulties.  With this caveat, Mr. Fyfe said that while there is lots of 
strong support for the CEF, most cautionary ASPE comments have centered around two 
topics:
?	The need for appropriate expertise of the personnel performing the 
estimates; and
?	Quality of the construction document data that directly affects the level of 
detail included in the estimate.  While most reviewers like the use of the 
Microsoft Excel workbook in Part A of the CEF, they would prefer to use 
historical, and/or local cost data, rather than factored national cost data 
from commercial estimating manuals; and the utilization of estimating 
expertise from the vicinity of the disaster, where possible.  This allows 
factors to be developed on-site, at the same location where the work would 
be done.  Regarding the ASPE level 3 estimate, that level is not designed 
to require sufficient construction documentation to attain the ideal +/-10% 
range of eventual firm bids.
Joseph Majewski, the President of ASPE, spoke at the request of Mr. Fyfe and with the 
Panel's permission.  Mr. Majewski indicated that ASPE's Manual stresses the need for 
sound judgment when preparing an estimate.  The Manual helps educate others on how to 
prepare a reliable and valid estimate.  He added that everything from a house to a nuclear 
power plant uses all 16 Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) trade categories 
(divisions) that the CEF is based upon.
Mr. Fyfe assured the Panel that the formal ASPE findings would be provided as soon as 
possible.
General Discussion
The Panel agreed that the ASPE Manual emphasizes uniformity, ethics, and sound 
judgment.  The Panel also agreed that there was no need to prepare every estimate as 
though it would wind up in litigation.  There also was agreement that developing 
estimates in rural areas require flexibility, but if properly researched and documented, it 
is possible to develop a reliable estimate of what a project "should" cost without local 
data.
However, it was recognized that it might be difficult even for a professional estimator to 
make valid cost estimates in rural areas.  Estimates for rural roadway projects, for 
example, may be "all over the map."  Often, if all bids are high in a rural area relative to 
construction costs expected for a given project, the project is withdrawn and rebid at a 
later date with cost refinements reflected in the engineer's estimate.  More over, due to 
the immediate need to restore critical infrastructure to respond to and recover from the 
effects of disaster, the rebidding solution normally used for capital improvement projects 
is not practicable.
Panelists were pleased with the generally strong support of the CEF provided by ASPE.  
They were gratified with the anticipation that the large group of reviewers provided by 
ASPE would validate what the Panel concluded at the previous meeting.
FEMA Presentation Comparing the CEF to ASPE's Level 3 Estimating Approach
J. David Duffer, FEMA, presented the results of FEMA's comparative analysis of the 
Cost Estimating Format (CEF) for Large Projects to ASPE's Level 3 estimating approach 
(Attachment B) as prepared by the Standards Board of ASPE in its publication Standard 
Estimating Practice (ASPE, 5th edition, October 1998).  ASPE's Level 3 estimate is a 
"Design Development / Budget Appropriation" level prepared from not less than 25 
percent complete preliminary design drawings and draft specifications.  The purpose of 
this estimate is to establish probable costs within the range of available information.  Mr. 
Duffer also addressed whether a CEF estimate at an ASPE Level 3 would be comparable 
to an ASPE Level 5 estimate, plus or minus 10 percent (the thresholds selected by the 
Panel for any estimating process).
Mr. Duffer noted that a clear definition of the scope-of-work, the level of completion of 
the A&E effort, the estimating technique employed, and the skill of the estimator or 
estimating team govern the accuracy of any estimate.  Estimates range in scope and detail 
from order of magnitude to firm fixed price contractor bids.  The former are based on 
preliminary information while the latter are based on a complete set of plans and 
specifications.
CEF is a procedure to estimate eligible grant funds for reimbursement of expenses to an 
eligible applicant.  Estimates prepared using the CEF (Instructional Guide, Version 2, 
October 1998) parallel the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) Divisions of Work.  
The key element of the CEF is Part A and it is to be itemized to the greatest extent 
possible.  Local pricing is brought into Part A, consisting of completed work, bid, or local 
costs, before going to R.S. Means cost data.  Parts B through H reflect the estimator's 
confidence in the completeness of the Part A costs.  In other words, local cost data is 
incorporated in Part A and parts B-H are zeroed out.  If local cost data is unavailable for 
any of the work components, the appropriate parts (B-H) are then selected and factored 
into the estimate.  When we have total confidence in Part A there is no need to use Parts 
B through H of the CEF.  However, the factors used in Parts B-H are based on industry 
standard source data obtained from R.S. Means and the American Society of Civil 
Engineers.  This is appropriate because the factors are generally only applied when the 
estimate is R.S. Means based and should be applied only when other data are not 
available (such as applicant provided historical cost data, an applicant's bid documents, 
or other average-weighted unit costs from an applicant, etc.).  CEF training emphasizes 
the hierarchy of cost data selection, with local costs used first and FEMA cost codes used 
only as a last resort.
To perform the primary comparison of CEF to an ASPE Level 3, the documentation and 
design development criteria for both estimating methods were detailed.  The supporting 
documentation and criteria were then compared and the similarities and differences 
summarized.  Generally the requirements for both estimating methodologies are very 
similar.  Site plans, dimensions, arrangements and schematics are required for both.  
ASPE also requires detailed preliminary plumbing, mechanical and electrical drawings as 
a requirement.  This level of detail is not explicitly defined as a requirement of the CEF.  
Requirements for both methodologies are generally quite similar, even though the two are 
NOT directly comparable.  The CEF focuses on costs to return damaged eligible facilities 
to their pre-disaster condition.  In this regard, FEMA's CEF parallels the performance 
objective of ASPE Level 3.  Under post-disaster conditions, a CEF estimate will compare 
favorably with other cost estimating methodologies (e.g., Building Construction 
Handbook, 2nd ed., 1975, McGraw-Hill Book Company; United States Department of 
Energy, Cost Estimating Guide, DOE G 430.1-1, Chapter 11, Maximum Upper Limit 
Values; Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering, Cost Estimate 
Classification System, Recommended Practice No. 17R-97; etc.) and produce an estimate 
of approximately the same magnitude and confidence level.
The results of FEMA's review of ASPE Estimating procedures (Levels 1 through 6) and 
their purpose and comparison to the CEF found that, indeed, the CEF process does 
parallel the ASPE Level 3 process in: (1) level of contingency (design phase scope 
contingency), and (2) the type and level of design documentation required.  FEMA's 
review also found that other cost estimating approaches allow for use of factors and that 
the CEF Factors can be adjusted in the field based on the characteristics of specific 
disasters.  Although ASPE's method does not specifically incorporate factors in the 
estimate, and indeed allows a percentage to be used for general conditions only in levels 
one and two, standard estimating industry practice often involves adding a percentage of 
base costs to a number of items needed to put together a total cost estimate (e.g., 
construction cost contingencies, reserve for change orders, overhead, profit, etc.).
Mr. Duffer noted that CEF accuracy is dependent on the information available at the time 
of the preparation of the estimate.  Repair work or other discrete work elements should 
generally be well defined during the initial field inspection.  Retrofit/upgrade and/or 
hazard mitigation efforts will not be fully established until design is started or completed.  
If new construction is anticipated, (especially when making a repair versus replacement 
analysis) this will ultimately require extensive design that will not be available when the 
CEF is initially prepared.  A combination of work types would still make the CEF 
parallel to an ASPE Level 3 estimate.Mr. Duffer also noted that to ensure a high level of 
confidence in the estimate, a clear definition of the scope of work is required, along with 
active participation by the applicant.  To meet the ASPE level 5 criteria using the Panel's 
plus or minus ten percent thresholds, the Panel could consider refining the qualification 
criteria to include all large permanent work projects (e.g., apply the 10 percent plus and 
minus criteria) on the basis of all work being done for an individual applicant, rather than 
on a project-by-project basis.  In his remarks, Mr. Duffer concluded that the CEF falls 
well within the range of other industry accepted cost estimating systems.  He noted that 
the CEF Instructional Guide, Version 2 (November 1998) would need to be updated to 
include lessons learned in the field.
General Discussion of FEMA's Presentation
There was considerable discussion about the timing of estimates.  Even in the aftermath 
of a disaster, there is a need for FEMA to work closely with the State when inspecting 
sites and developing estimates.  Technical personnel (e.g., engineers, architects, etc.) are 
required to meet with applicants who have suffered disaster damages.  FEMA needs to 
get people out there quickly who know how to estimate and who know how to relate to 
the local people.   There was general consensus about the need for applicant participation 
in the estimating process, as well as the need for qualified estimators (i.e., a team 
approach).
With regard to the quality of Project Officers, FEMA makes a preliminary determination 
after each disaster about the number of estimators and the areas of expertise required for 
the work.  In response to questions about the qualifications and training required for 
estimators, FEMA indicated that different levels of expertise might be needed for 
different types of projects.  Some projects, like culvert washouts, are relatively simple 
and a Civil Engineer with road and bridge experience would normally be used.  Other 
projects require significant, more specialized technical expertise (e.g., a geotechnical 
engineer to estimate the eligible costs for repairing landslides).
The character and knowledge of individual estimators (i.e., POs, and Public Assistance 
Coordinators, or PACs) are very important.  They need to have very high ethical 
standards.  While all participants agreed that the training and qualifications of estimators 
is important, clearly not everyone has the same level of training and experience.  FEMA 
must make an initial judgment about the level and mix of technical expertise it sends to a 
disaster.  This initial judgment may need to be modified, as more information about 
damages becomes known.  It was noted that FEMA does not have control over personnel 
the States send out to work with FEMA on the response and recovery process.
Panelists were interested in the disparity between larger urban applicants and smaller 
rural applicants who may be unable to provide the participating local funding match 
required by the State.  They believed that FEMA should try to be more compassionate 
than most insurance companies.  FEMA responded that while one of its goals is to 
develop a more robust communication methodology that will work for the applicants to 
let them know about the resources at their disposal, the Stafford Act is quite explicit on 
the extent of supplemental assistance that FEMA can direct towards an eligible applicant 
for eligible work.  FEMA recognizes that projects with a predisposition toward known 
problems (such as geotechnical flaws, hidden building damage, differing site conditions, 
etc.) need to be able to include appropriate architectural and engineering expertise for the 
contemplated work effort as may be required.  Efforts such as these must be done early in 
the evaluation process, before the CEF is used and the Project Worksheet completed.
Panelists noted that FEMA should think broadly about the scope and content of its 
training.  There is a need for applicants and their staff, and State personnel, to receive 
training about Project Worksheet documentation requirements and the recovery process 
early in the response effort.  Training in the immediate aftermath of a disaster is not 
always possible to do.  Sometimes even small initiatives can make a big difference in 
qualifying projects for funding.  For example, basic "field etiquette" is needed, such as 
providing a scale for the disaster damaged object being photographed, depicting which 
direction is North, and explicating the essential elements of information necessary for a 
fully-defined undertaking as contemplated by the applicant, etc.  In response, FEMA 
explained that it had redesigned the PA Program to provide money to applicants more 
quickly and to make the application process simpler than before.  The redesigned PA 
Program was approved for implementation on disasters declared after October 1, 1998.  
A Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on October 12, 1999 (at 64 FR 
55158) to reflect the changes that FEMA needed to put the new Public Assistance 
Program into effect.  Specific changes to Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations - 
Part 206 include renaming documents, defining terms, adjusting responsibilities, and 
editing the rule in a way that that makes the rule easier to read and understand.  The PA 
Program provides the basis for consistent training and credentialing of staff (people) who 
administer the program; more accessible and understandable guidance and policy for 
participating in the grant program; improved customer service through a more efficient 
grant delivery process, applicant-centered management, and better information exchange; 
and continuing performance evaluations and program improvements.  But these matters 
are more germane to providing money to applicants, rather than developing cost-
estimates.  The Panel agreed, and for the purposes of the Federal Advisory Committee, 
recommended that training be limited to the selected cost estimating methodology and an 
Emergency Management Institute (EMI) resident CEF course offering, be made available 
to both Federal and State staff at the National Emergency Training Center in 
Emmitsburg, Maryland, based on the current CEF course and training materials used by 
the Disaster Field Training Organization (DFTO).
One panelist expressed concern that public agencies are at a disadvantage because they 
cannot attract and retain qualified people to develop estimates, because they compete 
with the private sector that can afford to hire the best.  Hiring a permanent cadre of fully 
trained estimators will take a long time and be costly.
FEMA also explained that while it was possible to have its own cadre of full-time cost-
estimators, the current level of funding made it highly unlikely.  Instead, FEMA relies on 
a large group of technical assistance contractors (TACs) that have access to personnel 
who do frequently engage in cost estimating for all types of infrastructure work.  The 
problem FEMA faces is that the disaster workload fluctuates continuously.  To obtain 
full-time employees, FEMA needs to be able to justify keeping them busy all the time.  It 
currently has the tools it needs to accomplish the job -- determining minimum 
qualifications, and using a combination of permanent- and disaster cadre staff, 
supplemented by TAC personnel, to provide appropriate resources for each disaster.  In 
general, FEMA is able to identify the requirements it needs, articulate those needs to a 
highly qualified pool of personnel (including TAC), and obtain the necessary resources 
whenever and wherever they are needed.
Panelists agreed that FEMA's existing cost estimating methodology (i.e., the Cost 
Estimating Format for Large Projects) is the recommended procedure for estimating the 
cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing a facility consistent with industry 
practices, based on each Panelists' independent peer review and the joint-Panel 
deliberations undertaken to date.
The Panel also acknowledged that while all personnel are not equally qualified, they 
should be able to get the mission completed with proper training provided at either the 
DFTO or EMI level.  The Panel suggested that training at the Emergency Management 
Institute (EMI) was preferable to training at a Disaster Field Training Office (DFTO), 
because of concerns with the environment (i.e., the DFO is conducive to disaster response 
and recovery operations, while EMI is conducive to learning).  Panelists' also cautioned 
that FEMA and TAC personnel also have the responsibility to be aware of their own 
professional limitations, and this should be emphasized during the CEF resident course 
offering at EMI.  The Panel concurred that a full-time cost estimating cadre is not 
required, as long as FEMA has immediate access to qualified personnel when needed.  
Panelist's agreed that FEMA personnel should only work within their area of expertise 
and agreed that establishing a person's work experience before utilizing their skills, could 
assist Public Assistance Coordinators (PACs) in better utilization of available technical 
expertise from the Federal/State resource pool.  The Panel also agreed that when the 
updated Engineering and Design Services (Curves A and B) were received, that the CEF 
for Large Projects Instructional Guide, Version 2 (November 1998) should be updated to 
include lessons learned from the field and curves A and B.
One panelist observed that the lower-bound percentile of 15% used for simple projects in 
the CEF for Large Projects Instructional Guide, Version 2 (November 1998) relating to 
the Part C.1: Standard Design-Phase Scope Contingencies factor, did not accurately 
depict the actual risk of bidding a simple project.
FEMA explained that the level of completion of A&E work as a function of time can 
characterize the construction and the C.1 factor is designed to account for these 
unknowns.  The unknowns gradually decrease as the scope of work is defined, details for 
completing the work are developed, and the project advances towards a set of 
construction drawings and specifications that can be used by a construction contractor.
Two levels of design development are currently considered in C.1, as follows:
Preliminary Engineering Analysis Stage:  At this stage, concepts have been 
developed, usually without a significant level of detailing.  It is difficult to accurately 
quantify work at this stage, and contractors would assume a relatively high level of 
risk in bidding a project at this time.  A recommended range of 15 to 20 percent is 
established to allow some differentiation between simple and more complex projects.
Working Drawing Stage:  At this stage, the design is more advanced, concepts have 
been determined, detailing is more complete, and work tasks and quantities have been 
readily defined.  Contractors would assume a low to medium level of risk in bidding 
this type of project.  The recommended range of 2 to 10 percent allows for some 
differentiation depending on the level of completeness of working drawings.  A 
project in the preliminary working drawing stage, which would have an average level 
of detail and readily identifiable quantities, should be assigned a factor at the upper 
end of the range.  A project in the final working drawing stage should be assigned a 
factor at the lower end of the range.
Panelists agreed that the project should be evaluated to determine the design phase at the 
time the estimate is prepared and that it is important to note that the C.1 contingency is 
intended to represent the state of the project design development at the time that the CEF 
is prepared.  Additionally, the Project Officer responsible for developing the estimate 
should obtain all information necessary to prepare the CEF for the current state of project 
development.  However, it is the sense of the Panel that the lower-bound percentile for 
simple projects is more realistically on the order of 7% and the C.1 factor should be 
revised to reflect this percentile.
Conclusion and Suggestions
Each Panelist voted on the behalf of their respective professional organizations.  They 
unanimously endorsed the Cost Estimating Format (CEF) for Large Projects, Version 2 
(November 1998) and selected the CEF as the recommended cost estimating 
methodology of the Public Assistance Program.  With the formal vote completed, the 
Panel elected to move directly into making specific suggestions intended to improve the 
overall quality of the CEF implementation.  The following are representative of the key 
comments made during the discussion:
?	The Public Assistance Officer (PAO) needs to be able to determine the correct 
type of expertise required for each large project.  If the required resource is not 
readily available, the PAO should have the skills necessary to obtain the correct 
type of expertise, as needed, for all large project types.  The process would be 
similar to the mechanism that FEMA uses when there are Special Considerations 
issues, such as historical preservation, environmental, or insurance issues, etc.  
The PAO must have the ability to inject appropriate expertise anywhere in the 
large project formulation process as needed.
FEMA Response: FEMA often sends in a TAC Liaison to work with a PAO to 
determine what type of technical expertise is needed for a large project and when.  
In this regard, the Panel agreed with FEMA's approach.
?	There is an overriding need to include PAOs and PACs in the CEF process.  This 
step is essential in getting them to understand and support the process.  Applicants 
and State staff also should be able to participate and get properly trained in the 
use of the CEF.
FEMA Response: Training was performed for the Nisqually Earthquake disaster 
in Olympia, Washington and for the floods in Houston, Texas with very good 
results.  Excellent feedback was received from both State and applicant 
participants.  FEMA agreed with the Panel's suggestion.
?	Cost estimating expertise is out there in the field already.  FEMA needs to be able 
to identify it and tap into it as needed.  Cost-estimators do not necessarily have to 
be on the site; the key is to be able to access discipline-specific expertise.  Often, 
the cost estimating specialists may be able to telecommute.
FEMA Response: FEMA noted that its TACs have the capability to procure 
technical resources relatively quickly to respond to disaster needs.  The Panel 
agreed with FEMA's approach.
?	The first estimator to visit a damaged facility needs to be a well-rounded seasoned 
professional, generally qualified in the entire spectrum of construction, including 
environmental, historical, and insurance issues.  This person will then identify and 
call for specific types of expertise, when needed (e.g., structural engineering, 
demolition, brickwork, etc.), and should probably be a FEMA employee, not a 
contractor.  FEMA really needs people familiar with demolition and hauling, 
earthwork, cofferdams, parks and recreation areas, paving, etc.  It can still rely 
heavily on contractors once these important base items are covered.  FEMA 
agreed with the Panel's suggestion.
--  lunch break  --
Engineering and Design Services (Curves A & B) Status
J. David Duffer, FEMA, presented the results of his review of Engineering and Design 
Services Curves A and B (used for determining the percentage of Engineering and 
Design Services for a large project) as requested by the Panel during the first meeting of 
the Expert Panel on Cost Estimating for the Public Assistance Program.  During the first 
meeting, Panel members asked FEMA to procure data from the National Society of 
Professional Engineers (NSPE), the American Institute of Architects (AIA), and the 
American Consulting Engineers Council (ACEC) as it relates to a proposed update to 
curves A and B.  Curve A represents compensation for basic services expressed as a 
percentage of construction cost for projects of above average complexity and non-
standard design, and curve B represents compensation for basic services expressed as a 
percentage of construction cost for projects of average complexity.
All three professional organizations responded and acknowledged that neither NSPE, 
AIA or ACEC had ever developed this kind of data; they only knew of the American 
Society of Civil Engineer's (ASCE) Manual 45 entitled: "Consulting Engineering: A 
Guide for the Engagement of Engineering Services".
According to ASCE, the existing Engineering and Design Services Curves that FEMA 
uses were initially developed in 1975 based on a nationwide survey of architectural and 
engineering (A&E) firms and were published in the first edition of Manual 45.  In 1982, a 
nationwide survey of A&E firms was performed and updated curves were developed.  In 
1988, the 2nd edition of Manual 45 was published, but did not include the 1982 updated 
curves, because A&E firm's generally believed the curves would limit the fee structure 
established by some A&E firms.  This matter was discussed at the highest levels of 
ASCE, to include the Office of the President.  In 1996, the 3rd edition of Manual 45 was 
published, but did not include curves A and B for the very same reason previously cited.  
In 2001, the ASCE Committee on Professional Practice meeting was conducted in San 
Antonio, TX on November 10 and 11, 2001.  The committee considered curves A and B 
for inclusion in the 4th edition of Manual 45 contemplated for publication in early 2002, 
based on a nationwide survey of A&E firms performed this year.
The chairman of the Committee on Professional Practice will provide curves A and B to 
FEMA, subsequent to the ASCE meeting in San Antonio, TX, whether or not the curves 
are included in the 4th edition of Manual 45.There was a general consensus among the 
Panelists, that the 1975 curves still being used by FEMA are lower than current 
engineering and construction costs.  This was not important before CEF when A&E costs 
were adjusted to reflect actual eligible expenses.  However, under CEF, a better estimate 
of A&E costs is necessary.
Expert Panel Comments on the Recommendation Report to Director
J. David Duffer, FEMA, distributed a rough draft of a summary Recommendation Report 
to the Director of FEMA with the caveat that it would be revised to capture the key Panel 
recommendations made during today's meeting.  Panelists unanimously agreed that most 
of the concerns discussed in today's meeting had been previously addressed in the CEF 
and noted that the process is founded on an established methodology that allows the PAO 
to determine the appropriate level of expertise needed on a disaster, and engages 
applicants early in the decision-making process when their input matters most.
Additionally, Panelists agreed that the report should be rather brief, include pertinent 
graphics and other exhibits, and not turn into a long document.  They further indicated 
that the CEF procedure would be superior to the base cost estimating methodology that is 
being used and has been used in the past.  They recognized that the CEF could be 
modified in the future as FEMA gains more experience with it and cost data is made 
available to statistically analyze it, determine correlations if possible and assess its 
performance.  Two specific issues were identified that Panelists desired to be addressed 
in the report:
?	The level of effort used to prepare an estimate.  The concern was that it's usually 
best to take a little more time preparing the estimate at the outset.  This improves 
the chances that it will not have to be revisited in the future.
?	The role of the Applicant in developing the estimate.  Working with the applicant 
early on in a disaster to discuss and agree on the scope of eligible damages would 
be quite helpful in reducing the need for change orders.
General Discussion
?	One Panelist indicated that FEMA should group all large projects by applicant on 
a disaster and reconcile actual large project costs as a group, to achieve the targets 
of plus and minus 10 percent.  Another possibility is to aggregate projects at the 
community level (e.g., by city, township, municipality, etc.) regardless of the 
applicant.  However, FEMA should still retain individual project data for the 
record.
?	There is some concern about what to do when there are only one or two bidders, 
as is common in a small community, because a competitive bidding environment 
is normally not present.  There was discussion about whether FEMA needs to 
establish some sort of a "rider" to allow special consideration for small, rural 
communities.  Some panelists agreed with the concept of a rider; others felt that 
there is no need for a rider, as long as actual local costs are applied in place at the 
time of the disaster.  In small communities, some actual costs could be as much as 
20 or 30 percent higher than the costs of similar work in large communities.
FEMA Response: FEMA noted that in the case of a small community, it would 
act in good faith and recognize a small community's financial constraints early on 
in the process and estimate accordingly.  FEMA also noted that it is best to ask for 
assistance as soon as possible after a disaster and for the record, that it would 
make a special effort in small, rural communities to use local prices wherever 
possible.  FEMA acknowledged that there may not always be a competitive 
bidding environment in small rural communities, including some situations where 
the "low bidder simply does not show up."
Panel Recommendation: Collect and retain cost data for each project for use in analyzing 
results.  FEMA should then incorporate CEF data into its computer system (e.g., NEMIS 
or a statistical analysis package, etc.) to be able to access it for analysis.
FEMA Response: FEMA indicated that it would take at least a few years to procure 
enough data from the Nisqually and Houston disasters to see how well the CEF performs.  
FEMA also is planning to use the CEF in New York for the disaster at the World Trade 
Center.  Ultimately, some years down the line, FEMA would like to process large project 
grants on the basis of cost estimates alone, but acknowledged that data analysis would be 
required.
Next Steps
FEMA asked the Panel to consider what its requirements might be for future Panel 
deliberations.  FEMA indicated that, with the Panel's concurrence, it would consolidate 
their comments into a draft Recommendation Report and circulate it to Panel members 
for their review.  Based on the comments, FEMA would then check with Panelists and 
determine if there is a need for another meeting.  There was consensus among the 
Panelists that while the decision to meet again should remain open, there is no need to 
meet in relation to the tasks completed to date as depicted in the Panel's Federal 
Advisory Committee Charter.  FEMA asked for volunteers from the Panel to write a 
rough draft of the executive summary to set the desired tone of the Recommendation 
Report to the Director, and the Panel unanimously agreed that J. David Duffer, FEMA's 
Executive Officer would draft the Recommendation Report on behalf of the Panel.
The Panel agreed that 30 days for review of the draft report would be sufficient.  There 
was agreement to use e-mail messages wherever possible to transmit electronic copies of 
the draft Recommendation Report so that comments could be finalized and appropriate 
revisions made to the report.  One suggestion was to use the tracking mechanism under 
MS Word to make comments and to implement agreed upon changes to the report.
Closing Comments by Panelists and Members of the General Public
?	Kai 'opua Fyfe:  Remember, at the beginning of the disaster response, FEMA 
needs to send a person who is qualified in cost estimating to determine the types 
of technical expertise required for estimating large project costs on a disaster.  
ASPE thinks that ASPE certification qualifications are sound, especially since 
they have continuing education requirements.  One of the requirements for 
application to the ASPE Certification Program is a minimum of 5 years 
experience doing estimating.  Kai is willing to look at ASPE tools and documents 
to see what may be useful to FEMA, but does not think that a certification 
requirement is necessary for all FEMA estimators.  Estimator expertise can also 
be evaluated by utilizing traditional employment industry search tools.
?	John Oshel:  Lots of our work is bread and butter that certainly will not require a 
fully certified estimator.
?	Larry Zensinger:  Increased exposure to the educational materials would certainly 
be appropriate for FEMA folks.
?	Melinda McDonough:  There was Panel discussion relating to the refining of the 
CEF process qualification criteria, in order to achieve the ASPE level 5 criteria 
using the Panel's selected plus or minus ten percent thresholds, but a Panel 
consensus was not explicitly reached.  In order to evaluate FEMA's cost 
estimating performance against the Panel's thresholds, did the Panel decide to 
group all of an applicant's large permanent work projects together, rather than 
reconciling costs on a project-by-project basis?
Answer: Panelists discussed this important distinction and agreed that cost 
reconciliation and the subsequent comparison of the actual eligible costs against 
the selected plus or minus ten percent thresholds would be done on a project-by-
project basis.  Mr. Duffer thanked Ms. McDonough for bringing this important 
matter to the attention of the Panel and noted that the Panel's subsequent 
recommendation would be incorporated in both the Panel's record and the 
Recommendation Report to the Director of FEMA.
?	J. David Duffer: Based on the previous discussion, it should be made clear that for 
the purpose of the plus or minus ten percent threshold comparison to actual 
eligible cost, only the CEF estimate line item of the Project Worksheet (PW) 
could be compared to like costs derived from the total actual eligible cost.  Often, 
the PW contains other line items of eligible work activity not normally contained 
within the CEF estimate, such as, salvage value, depreciation, insurance 
adjustments, anticipated insurance settlements, etc.  Therefore, the threshold 
comparison to actual eligible costs must be made on the same line items of work 
defined in the CEF estimate, and not the total actual costs for the PW.
Answer: The Panel discussed and agreed with Mr. Duffer's observation and 
recommended that the proposed CEF data procurement process within the Public 
Assistance module of the National Emergency Management Information System 
be designed to consider direct tracking and resultant comparison of like work 
activities between the CEF estimate and actual eligible costs, and eliminate the 
potential for comparison of non-like work activity.
Closing Administrative Comments
In closing, Larry Zensinger noted that the Panel shall function on a continuing basis in 
accordance with the authorizing statute unless terminated by appropriate legislative 
authority.  The Panel will meet not later than one year after the date of promulgation of 
regulations by FEMA, three years after that date and at the end of each two-year period.  
The purpose of these meetings is to examine the appropriateness of the adopted cost 
estimating procedure and to periodically submit a report to Congress on the Panel's 
findings.
Mr. Zensinger thanked all the Panelists and members of the general public for 
participating in the meeting and complimented the Panel for being a first-class, collegial 
group.  Mr. Zensinger also noted that the Panel's objectives as depicted in the Federal 
Advisory Committee Charter had been successfully achieved.
The meeting adjourned at 4:00 PM.
I 		/s/		 (Laurence W. Zensinger, Designated Federal Official), this 
30th day of November, 2001, hereby certify that the Summary Meeting Notes and 
attachments accurately describe the matters discussed and resolutions made during the 
second Federal Advisory Committee Meeting of the Expert Panel on Cost Estimating for 
the Public Assistance Program.


5.6	Recommended Cost Estimating Procedure
The following summarized procedures, are recommended by the Panel, for estimating the 
cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing a facility consistent with industry 
practices, for the Public Assistance (PA) Program:
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Public Law 93-
288, as amended), authorizes the Federal government to assist State and local 
governments with recovery from disasters.  In accordance with this legislation, which is 
referred to as the Stafford Act, State and local governments and certain private non-profit 
organizations may receive financial assistance to repair or replace disaster-damaged 
public facilities and other infrastructure components.  The Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA), in partnership with State governments, is responsible for 
managing the provision of this assistance under the Public Assistance Program.
Through the PA Program, FEMA pays the Federal share of the cost of repair or 
replacement of a facility as it existed prior to the disaster.  The estimate of this cost is 
determined by a team of Federal and State technical specialists working in cooperation 
with a representative of the State or local government entity applying for the assistance 
(the applicant).  For large projects1, this estimate is used to determine the initial Federal 
obligation of funds for the work, but it is not necessarily the final cost that will be 
approved for the project.  Rather, the final cost is based upon the reasonable, actual costs 
incurred by the applicant in completing the eligible scope of work.  Actual costs are 
determined through a reconciliation process initiated by the State when the work is 
complete.  Discrepancies between the initial estimate and the final cost are reconciled 
through the obligation (or de-obligation) of Federal funds.
The Federal-State team typically prepares the initial construction estimate using the best 
available unit cost data for the elements of the facility requiring repair or replacement.  
These unit costs (also referred to as "construction costs") represent the itemized 
breakdown of construction work activities for completing the project.  The unit costs 
usually do not include project design and management costs, contractor overhead and 
profit, fees, cost escalation due to inflation, and other factors affecting the overall cost of 
the project.  These costs (also referred to as "construction-related costs") are addressed 
through the reconciliation process once the project is complete.  While the applicant may 
eventually receive reimbursement for these costs, the final amount of the grant is 
unknown at the time of construction.  Further, the grant is subject to review during the 
reconciliation process, and the outcome of this review can affect the amount.
To provide the applicant with a better representation of actual costs at the beginning of 
the assistance process, the Cost Estimating Format (CEF) for Large Projects was 
developed.  The CEF was designed to capture not only direct project-related costs, but 
indirect project related costs as well.  Construction costs are unit costs (or base costs), 
such as reinforcing steel or concrete that will be used in the restoration of a structure.  
Construction-related costs (interchangeably referred to as parts or factors), which may not 
always be included in the initial estimate, include design and project management costs, 
contractor overhead and profit fees, cost escalation due to inflation, and other factors 
such as plan check fees and construction permits affecting the overall cost of the 
completed project.  By including all construction and construction-related costs (i.e., base 
costs and parts or factors) in the initial estimate, a more accurate estimate of total project 
costs is determined before work is begun.  Additionally, the accuracy of the cost estimate 
is important for construction planning, budgeting and management purposes.
The Development of the Cost Estimating Format (CEF)
The concept of the CEF was first designed and developed for use in the Public Assistance 
Program at the Northridge Earthquake Long Term Recovery Area Office in Pasadena, 
California.  James D. Duffer, serving as the Public Assistance Officer and Infrastructure 
Chief for the Northridge Earthquake disaster, resourced and provided first line 
supervision to the production team that calibrated the methodology.  These efforts 
contributed to the transformation of the traditional FEMA methods used to estimate costs 
for large projects into a uniform and credible standard of customer service.  Repair and 
replacement costs for Category E facilities damaged during the 1994 Northridge 
earthquake were estimated using an early version of the CEF and final grant offers were 
made to applicants on the basis of those estimates under the Grant Acceleration Program 
(GAP).  FEMA developed the GAP to aid in reaching administrative closure on Los 
Angeles, California's Northridge Earthquake (DR-1008) projects.  The GAP was 
designed to establish a single fixed project cost amount for all eligible work, including 
contractor's markup, reserves for standard change orders, architecture and engineering 
design, and owner's management costs.  GAP used a CEF-based estimate of total project 
costs that established a fixed level of funding based on R.S. Means cost codes to cover 
the eligible scope of repair/recovery to the damaged facility, plus (as applicable) industry 
standard factors to account for construction project risk, as well as standard industry 
markups.  The factors are also derived from R.S. Means.
The settlement offer was based upon a cost estimate performed by FEMA using the CEF, 
which was developed to simplify and systematize the determination of these markup 
factors in a manner consistent with industry practice.  The grant provided under the GAP 
was a fixed sum when an eligible applicant signed the GAP offer.  Any cost over-runs 
were the applicant's responsibility and the applicant agreed to give up their right to 
appeal or request supplemental project funding.  If a project proved to be more 
economical than the GAP offer, the applicant could utilize the unspent balance for 
approved Section 406 hazard mitigation projects on the same facility.
Current Implementation of the CEF
A new version of the CEF has since been developed and has also been tested, peer-
reviewed, and published during the redesign of the Public Assistance Program in 
Hyattsville, Maryland under the management and leadership of James D. Duffer, Project 
Officer of the CEF effort and Deputy Director of the Public Assistance Program redesign.
The new version of the CEF was designed for all types of infrastructure damage, for all 
types of disasters.  This version of the CEF was tested against cost data from large project 
closeouts, and by May 1998 had undergone a peer review by a group of construction, 
engineering and cost-estimating industry experts consisting of Fluor Daniel, Incorporated 
(both its engineering and construction divisions) and the American Society of Civil 
Engineers who evaluated the methodology, substantiated component factors, and 
recommended improvements necessary to apply the CEF nationally.  These 
recommendations were subsequently incorporated into the cost estimating instrument and 
the CEF Instructional Guide.
This version of the CEF was first used in the pilot of the redesigned Public Assistance 
Program that was conducted in the State of Kentucky during a combined tornadoes and 
flooding disaster in April of 1998, and since then, the Nisqually Earthquake, the Cerro 
Grande Fire, the Houston Flood of 2001, and the World Trade Center Terrorist Attack in 
New York City, etc., to estimate repair and replacement costs of damaged facilities.
Components of the CEF
The CEF provides a worksheet, called Part A, which permits the user to estimate the base 
construction costs, using local cost data such as, completed project costs or a comparable 
bid tab, applicant-provided local cost data or cost history, or local average weighted unit 
prices, etc.  A series of factors (Parts B through H) that represent construction-related 
costs are then applied, as appropriate, to the Part A base construction cost to estimate the 
total cost of completing the project.  This "forward-pricing" methodology provides an 
estimate of the total eligible funding at the beginning of the project.  This estimate, which 
is used to obligate the funds for the project, allows the applicant to more accurately 
manage the budget with a greater degree of confidence.
Regardless of the type of cost data used in Part A, Parts B through H are R.S. Means-
based factors (a supplier of construction cost information) that represent construction-
related costs that are directly connected to the project.  It is therefore critically important 
that the cost estimator determine all elements that make up the unit costs itemized in Part 
A that could potentially be duplicated in Parts B through H, thereby resulting in an 
inflated project cost.  For example, if the work is completed and actual costs are known 
and itemized in Part A, the user does not apply Parts B through G.  Conversely, if local 
cost data is unavailable and R.S. Means cost data is used to itemize work activities in Part 
A, the user may apply one or more of the Parts B through H factors.
Table 1 below, depicts the hierarchy of preferred pricing with completed work costs or 
local cost data favored first and FEMA cost codes favored least.  FEMA cost codes are 
not depicted in Table 1 for this reason.  The construction-related costs represented by 
Parts B through H are usually encountered during the course of construction and can 
normally be expected to occur.  In all cases, the cost estimator is responsible for 
determining the make-up of the unit costs used in Part A, before applying one or more of 
the Parts B-H factors so that cost duplication of work activities previously considered in 
Part A are eliminated.
CEF Part
Types of Costs Used in Part A and Typical Application of Factors
A
Completed Work
Bid Tab
Local Cost Data
R.S. Means Cost Data
B
*
*
*
Y
C
*
*
*
Y
D
*
*
*
Y
E
*
*
Y
Y
F
*
Y
Y
Y
G
*
Y
Y
Y
H
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y = Part or Factor Normally Applied		* = Part or Factor Normally Not Applied
Table 1
The CEF provides a more uniform method of estimating costs for large projects and 
accounts for costs incurred across the entire spectrum of eligible work (from design to 
project completion).
The parts of the CEF are listed below.
Part A is the estimated sum of construction costs, referred to as the base cost.
Part B includes construction costs, not typically itemized in Part A that facilitate 
the work.  Part B includes such costs as the general contractor's field supervision 
costs and job site costs such as temporary services and utilities, safety and 
security measures, quality control and administrative submittals.
Part C reflects construction cost contingencies and is designed to address 
budgetary risks associated with project complexity in determining the scope of 
work.  Part C factors are determined on the basis of the amount of design work 
completed at the time the estimate is prepared, the complexity of the project and 
the degree of difficulty for site access, storage, and staging.
Part D accounts for the contractor's home office overhead, insurance, bonds, and 
profit.  This factor is typically not used for projects completed using the 
applicant's labor, equipment and materials (referred to as "force account" 
work).
Part E accounts for cost escalation over the duration of the project and is based 
upon an inflation adjustment from the time the estimate is prepared until the mid-
point of construction for the eligible scope of work.
Part F includes fees for building permits, plan checks, and special reviews.
Part G is the applicant's reserve for change orders and differing site conditions.
Part H accounts for the applicant's cost to manage the design and construction of 
the project.  These costs are not part of the statutory administrative cost allowance 
that is separately provided to the applicant under the PA Program to manage the 
overall recovery effort.  The administrative allowance, which is authorized by the 
Stafford Act and is intended to defray the cost of requesting, obtaining and 
administering Federal assistance, does not account for project management costs.
These factors and recommended ranges were developed using guidance available from 
the Construction Specifications Institute (a technical society whose core purpose is to 
improve the process of creating and sustaining the built environment) and the R.S. Means 
Company (a supplier of construction cost information).  The factors were verified using 
data from closed-out grants for large projects nationwide and as more cost data becomes 
available the factors could be revised to more appropriately reflect market conditions.  
The CEF worksheet (in Microsoft Excel format) is used to apply the factors in Parts B 
through H, to the Part A estimate.
Typically, an applicant (the owner or party responsible for repairs) utilizes a general 
contractor and a number of subcontractors to complete a large construction project in a 
competitively bid environment.  The structure of the CEF mirrors the applicant-general 
contractor-subcontractor relationship for eligible work in that:
?	Part A costs are representative of the construction efforts of the subcontractor(s).
?	Parts B, C, D, and E represent the general contractor or equivalent construction-
related costs; they can be considered as "as-bid" costs and represent the costs of 
completing the work in a competitively bid environment.
?	Parts F, G, and H represent the applicant's markups and construction-related costs 
once the design and construction contractor(s) have been hired.
Eligible Work and Cost
Grants administered under the PA Program must comply with the provisions of the 
Stafford Act.  Application of these provisions is described in Part 206 of Title 44 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).  These regulations define the types of facilities, 
work, and costs that are eligible for reimbursement under the PA Program.  When a large 
project estimate is developed, the base cost (Part A) must include only that work which is 
eligible under these regulations.
Public Assistance grants must also comply with Part 13 of 44 CFR, which defines 
procedures for grant administration by the State and provides specific guidance on 
allowable costs.  The factors included in the CEF represent only those non-construction 
costs that are allowable under Part 13.  The factors also represent costs that an applicant 
can reasonably expect to incur during construction, if not already itemized and included 
in Part A.  Excessive mark-ups for possible contingencies are not allowable under the 
provisions of Part 13.
Applicability and Limitations
In general, to qualify for CEF consideration, a project must be:
?	a large project (according to the FEMA threshold for the applicable fiscal year); 
and
?	permanent restorative work (Categories C - G).
The CEF is intended for use on large permanent work projects that are eligible under the 
Stafford Act, Federal regulations, and FEMA policy.  It may be used for all types of 
disasters and all types of facilities, including:
?	Transportation facilities, including roadways, bridges, and tunnels.
?	Water control facilities, such as irrigation and drainage systems.
?	Buildings and similar structures, including warehouses, garages, offices, schools, 
libraries, municipal buildings, museums, research facilities, laboratories, and 
hospitals.
?	Utilities, such as water treatment, wastewater treatment, and power generation 
facilities, including the associated transmission, distribution, and collection 
systems.
?	Special facilities such as railroads, ports, marinas, and airports.
The Panel agrees with FEMA's application or non-application of the CEF given different 
circumstances on projects as follows:
?	The CEF should not be used for small projects, or for emergency work, such as 
large-scale debris removal operations (whether a small or a large project).
?	The CEF should only be used on large projects for which the permanent 
restorative work (Categories C, D, E, F, and G) is equal to or less than 89% 
complete.
?	Large projects that are equal to or greater than 90% complete are not required to 
use CEF, but will use actual costs within the Project Worksheet instead.
Note that percent complete is derived from the approved design and/or 
construction timeline for eligible work, using the start and completion dates of the 
project to determine project duration.
The CEF Workbook has been organized to make it user-friendly and flexible enough to 
respond to individual project conditions and to promote uniformity in the development of 
cost estimates.  While many projects are simple to analyze, others will need to be 
analyzed by level of completion and type of work activity being conducted.  Therefore, 
the user can structure the workbook to address specific project characteristics by simply 
clicking on those parameters that define the project.
Parts of the CEF Workbook
The parts of the CEF workbook are separated onto individual worksheets at the bottom of 
the workbook.  They are:
?	CEF Fact Sheet
?	Part A - "Base Costs" for Construction Work In Trades
?	Summary for Completed Work
?	Summary for Uncompleted Work
?	Total Project Summary
?	CEF Notes
Each of these parts is described below.
CEF Fact Sheet
The CEF Fact Sheet is the foremost worksheet in the CEF workbook and must be 
completed first.  It is designed to allow the user to document basic information about the 
project and the estimate, including the date the CEF was prepared, the declaration 
number, the FEMA Region, the applicant, the category of work, and the name and 
location of the facility.  The user should also provide a clear and concise description of 
the eligible scope of work.
The fact sheet also allows the user to customize the workbook for the type of work being 
performed and the level of project completion.  This customization occurs automatically 
when the user answers questions on the fact sheet, and includes changes to the formatting 
and labeling.
Type of Work:  The fact sheet asks the user for the type(s) of work that must be 
performed and types of work can include:
?	Repair work:  activities that are solely allocated to restore a damaged facility to its 
pre-disaster condition.
?	Retrofit and upgrade:  activities undertaken to upgrade a damaged item to current 
codes and standards.
?	New construction:  the replacement of part or all of a facility, as opposed to 
repairing or retrofitting discrete elements.
?	Hazard mitigation:  measures taken to reduce or eliminate future damage from 
hazards similar to that which caused the damage, or from multiple hazards.
?	Other work:  activities that are typically undertaken outside of the typical 
applicant-general contractor-subcontractor relationship.  Examples include 
hazardous material abatement, selective demolition, and force account activities.
A project can consist of one type of work, or multiple types, depending upon how the 
restoration activities match the requirements of the Public Assistance Program.  The user 
should select the work type(s) to be analyzed and enter them into the fact sheet.  Once the 
fact sheet is completed, a CEF Workbook tailored specifically for this analysis will be 
created.  To change the prepared format, the user should go back to the fact sheet and 
redefine the parameters of the project.
Part A - Base Costs for Construction Work In Trades
Part A of the CEF Workbook is designed to capture the detailed construction cost (or 
base cost) associated with each work activity that makes up the eligible scope of work.  
Estimates are defined using the Cost Item Number, Item Description Title or Component 
Description, and Cost Codes columns.  The total estimated cost for each work activity is 
a product of the quantity, unit price, and city adjustment index by Construction 
Specifications Institute (CSI) Division.
Work Completion:  Projects being analyzed will likely have completed and uncompleted 
work elements.  Since several of the CEF factors are based upon unknowns that result 
from the level of completion, the workbook is structured to analyze completed and 
uncompleted work separately.  Therefore, it is recommended that the user separate 
completed and uncompleted work in Part A.
Mixing actual costs with estimated costs in mid-construction can lead to inaccurate 
estimates, unless the already completed work is a discrete, stand-alone portion of the 
project without the potential for change orders.  For example, cost inaccuracies can result 
by using unit costs applicable to interstate highway construction for rural road projects, or 
by using concrete unit costs applicable to batch plant operations in situations where truck 
supplied concrete is the preferred method of operation.  Therefore, to be considered 
"completed work," a project work element must be:
?	a specific type of work (repair, retrofit, new construction, hazard mitigation, or 
other) for which actual incurred costs documentation for eligible work can be 
easily obtained; and
?	a discrete work activity (such as grading or laying foundations) that is complete 
and has no potential for future change orders.
In some cases, an applicant may have solicited bids for the project before the CEF is 
prepared.  The lowest qualified bid amount obtained through a competitive bid process 
can be accepted for purposes of developing an estimate, as long as the bid conforms 
substantially to the eligible scope of work and the qualified bidder has been given the 
notice to proceed.
Summary for Completed Work
Using the Summary for Completed Work, the user selects factors that are applied to the 
base cost estimate (Part A) for completed work.  The user employs either check boxes or 
specific values to apply each factor or sub-factor in the worksheet.  Check boxes are used 
when the factor is fixed (such as with B.2, the factor for General Conditions) or is 
calculated by the worksheet automatically (such as with H.1, the factor for Applicant's 
Project Management - Design Phase).
Summary for Uncompleted Work
Similarly, the Summary for Uncompleted Work allows the user to select factors that are 
applied to the base cost estimate (Part A) of uncompleted work.  As with the Summary 
for Completed Work, factors in Parts B through H are applied using check boxes or by 
selecting specific values.
Guidance on selecting factors (Parts B through H) is appropriately discussed throughout 
the text of the Cost Estimating Format (CEF) for Large Project - Instructional Guide, 
Version 2 (November 1998).
Total Project Summary
The Total Project Summary merges estimated costs for completed and uncompleted work 
into a single estimate for the entire project.  This estimate is used in the preparation of the 
Project Worksheet (PW).
CEF Notes
The CEF Notes sheet provides the user with a place to document the logic, assumptions, 
and reasoning for the selection of each factor.  To ensure proper documentation, the user 
must enter notes for each work type and must indicate the values chosen for each factor.  
The sheet also contains an area for miscellaneous comments and notes.

5.7	Panel Members' Biographies
Albert R. Ashwood (National Emergency Management Association)
Oklahoma Department of Civil Emergency Management
2401 N. Lincoln Blvd, Suite C51
P.O. Box 53365
Oklahoma City, OK 73152-3365
Phone: (405) 521-2481
Governor Frank Keating appointed Albert R. Ashwood Director of the Oklahoma 
Department of Civil Emergency Management in August 1997.  Prior to his 
appointment, he served the department as Deputy Director, from June 1995 
through August 1997.
Mr. Ashwood has held the position of State Coordinating Officer for seven 
Presidential Disaster Declarations, including the terrorist bombing of the Alfred P. 
Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995.  Following the bombing, he was first 
on the scene for the department, arriving approximately 25 minutes after the 
explosion.  He headed forward operations for the first three days of the incident 
before turning his attention to the administration of recovery efforts.
Mr. Ashwood has overseen the distribution and administration of over $250 
million in federal and state aid following Presidential Declarations, while serving 
the department.  He joined the state in 1988, and has served the department in 
various positions during his tenure.
In response to the September 11 terrorist acts upon our nation, President Bush 
created the new White House Office of Homeland Security.  Mr. Ashwood has 
been appointed Oklahoma's Point of Contact for the Office of Homeland 
Security.  Governor Keating also named Mr. Ashwood as vice chair to the 
Governor's Security and Preparedness Executive Panel.
Prior to State employment, Mr. Ashwood worked three years as editor of the 
Lincoln County News, a local Oklahoma newspaper.
Albert makes his home in Chandler, Oklahoma, with his wife and two children.


Robert L. Edelblut, Sr. (National Society of Professional Engineers)
908 Victoria Landing Drive
Woodstock, GA 30189-5479
Phone: (770) 928-9531
Robert L. Edelblut, Sr., P.E. is a native of Fort Myers, Florida and resides in 
Woodstock, Georgia with his wife of 59 years, Jewel.
Since 1945, Mr. Edelblut has been completely engaged in the cost estimation of 
construction projects, the management of construction projects, and other 
responsible actions required for the successful completion of any type of 
infrastructure work.
Mr. Edelblut is a registered licensed Professional Engineer in the States of 
Georgia and Alabama.  He also holds professional licensure in the areas of Utility 
Management and Real Estate Sales in the State of Georgia.
Mr. Edelblut has practiced for the past 40 years in the civil, structural and 
mechanical fields of the engineering and construction disciplines.  Mr. Edelblut 
laid his first water main in 1938 and since that time has been in responsible 
charge of important engineering work in the capacity of Project Manager or 
Construction Superintendent for numerous infrastructure projects, which include: 
a lock and dam project on a river in Tennessee; numerous water treatment and 
wastewater treatment plants for public entities; sewerage collection systems, 
including storm water detention and collection facilities; various types of 
manufacturing plants; high-rise, mid-rise and standard commercial buildings, 
including buildings for colleges, college student centers and county school 
systems; public office facilities; residential housing complexes; United States 
Army Corps of Engineers projects (with and without TRACE requirements); 
numerous state roads and highways, and city streets; numerous site development 
projects; and construction innovations on some of the country's first infrastructure 
projects based entirely on metric dimensioning.
Mr. Edelblut has been actively engaged with several professional associations and 
has held many offices in this regard.  He is a member of the National Society of 
Professional Engineers (NSPE) and held the posts of National Chairman, Vice-
President, Southeastern Vice-Chairman, and State Governor, respectively, of the 
Professional Engineers in Construction Practice Division and is also a member of 
the NSPE's Private Practice Division.  Mr. Edelblut also served the society in the 
capacity of participating member of the Engineer's Joint Contract Document 
Committee.  He is a member of the Georgia Society of Professional Engineers and 
a past Northwest Chapter President, Regional Vice-President and State President 
of the society.  Mr. Edelblut has been actively involved in other professional 
pursuits, to include membership in the American Arbitration Association 
(Construction Arbitrator), the American Planning Association (both at the State 
Chapter and National levels), the American Society of Professional Estimators (an 
affiliate member of the Georgia chapter and National Society), the Construction 
Specifications Institute, and the Cherokee County Board of Equalization (a Grand 
Jury appointment to serve) and the Cherokee County-Municipal Planning and 
Zoning Commission (a Board of Commissioners appointment to serve on a 
county-wide basis).
Mr. Edelblut was part owner of a construction company specializing in public 
utility projects based in the State of Florida.  He has been a senior estimator for 
Davis Constructors and Engineers (a subsidiary of Daniel International) in 
Albany, Georgia.  Mr. Edelblut also was a joint venturer with CFW Construction 
Company of Tennessee on public works projects.  He served as the project 
representative for the Gwinnett County Water and Sewer Authority and was in 
responsible charge of extensive public works.  In this capacity, Mr. Edelblut 
worked for the former Commissioner of the Georgia Department of 
Transportation, Mr. Wayne Shackelford.  Mr. Edelblut was the Project Manager, 
Chief Estimator and Secretary-Treasurer of Barge-Wagener, Incorporated.  This 
firm was the successor of Barge and Company.  Mr. Edelblut has also consulted 
in the areas of cost estimation and project management for numerous contractors.
Claudette R. Ford (American Public Works Association)
Public Works Agency
City of Oakland
250 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 238-6256
Claudette R. Ford has served as the Director of the Oakland, California, Public 
Works Agency since May 2000.  Prior to assuming this position, Ms. Ford held 
the position of Assistant Director of Maintenance Services and Interim Agency 
Director from October 1998 until May 2000.  Ms Ford started her career in Public 
Works in Hartford Connecticut, where she served as the Recycling Coordinator 
and implemented curbside recycling in 1991.  She later was promoted to 
Environmental Services Manager for the City of Hartford.  This unit included 
refuse and recycling collection, property maintenance and other environmentally 
sensitive issues.  In 1994, Ms. Ford became the Director of Public Works in New 
Haven, Connecticut.  She served in that position until she accepted the position 
with the City of Oakland.
Ms. Ford holds a Bachelors of Arts degree from Marymount College, Tarrytown, 
New York and a Masters of Business Administration from Marymount 
University, Arlington, Virginia.  She has also completed additional course work at 
the Hartford Graduate Center/Renssalear Polytechnic Institute, Yale University 
Management Training Institute and most recently is a graduate of the 2002, 
National Forum of Black Public Administrators Executive Leadership Institute.
Ms. Ford believes strongly that Public Works is a key and critical component to 
the successful delivery of emergency services.
R.A. Kai 'opua Fyfe (American Society of Professional Estimators)
P.O. Box 3870
Lihue, HI 96766
Phone: (808) 246-8899
Kai 'opua Fyfe brings to the Panel, 30 plus years of experience in commercial, 
industrial and institutional construction management, design coordination, cost 
engineering, project management, and claims mitigation and administration.  He 
is a Certified Professional Estimator in General Construction and Finish Trades 
disciplines.
Mr. Fyfe's disaster-specific expertise spans 13 years and 16 Presidential 
declarations.  From July 2001 to April 2002, he was assigned to the FEMA Texas 
Medical Center Task Force as a Technical Assistance Contract Project Officer 
and Senior Cost Estimator utilizing the Construction Estimating Format for Large 
Projects.
His previous disaster work includes multiple hurricanes in the U.S Virgin Islands, 
Puerto Rico, the Florida Keys and Hawai`i; numerous floods in Texas, the 
Dakotas, West Virginia, and Georgia; the Loma Prieta Earthquake in San 
Francisco, and Typhoon Omar on Guam.
Post-Hurricane Marilyn, Mr. Fyfe provided consulting estimating services to the 
University of the Virgin Islands.  He developed cost estimates for repair and 
replacement; hazard mitigation; improved and alternate project scenarios for 
infrastructure, mixed-type building and marine facility projects at three island 
campuses.
Mr. Fyfe is a past National Officer of the American Society of Professional 
Estimators with heavy committee involvement in Education, Certification, 
Standards and Industry Awareness.  He has served as a Construction Panel 
Arbitrator for the American Arbitration Association.
In his Hawai`i community, Mr. Fyfe is a Charter Board Member, past officer and 
Island Council Representative to the Native Hawaiian Education Council, 
appointed by the Secretary, U.S. Department of Education.  At the Hawai`i State 
Legislature he was in-session Clerk of the Senate Committee on Hawaiian 
Affairs.  He is student, trainer and facilitator of strategic planning and 
collaborative leadership for Native Hawaiian Community Development 
organizations.  Mr. Fyfe fulfills multiple roles to his extended-family organization 
relating to historical relationship with significant sites, genealogy and oral 
histories, and perpetuation of cultural traditions and indigenous language.
Charles F. Harper (American Institute of Architects)
Harper Perkins Architects
4724 Old Jacksboro Highway
Wichita Falls, TX 76302
Phone: (940) 767-1421
Charles Harper, FAIA is a native of Bonham, Texas.  In 1950 he started his 
architectural career at Texas Tech, graduating in 1955.  He is Chief Executive 
Officer of his architectural firm, Harper Perkins Architects (HPA) in Wichita 
Falls, Texas.  HPA will celebrate 40 successful years in 2002, one of the oldest 
firms in North Texas.  Harper is a Registered Architect in the States of Texas, 
Oklahoma, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Arkansas, Alabama, North Carolina 
and Florida.
He is a member of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the Construction 
Specifications Institute (CSI) and the Interfaith Forum for Religion, Art and 
Architecture (IFRAA).  In 1986 he was honored by the AIA by being named 
"Fellow, American Institute of Architects" (FAIA).  Mr. Harper is a member of 
the AIA Regional Urban Design Committee, Chair of the National AIA Disaster 
Response Committee and a member of the Regional/Urban Design Assistance 
Team (R/UDAT) Task Group.  In Texas, Mr. Harper has served as Vice President 
of the Texas Society of Architects (TSA) and has been a member of the Board of 
Directors of TSA.  In 1970 he designed the Texas Architect's Disaster Response 
and two years later applied that idea to the National AIA's Disaster Response 
Committee, which he chairs.  His work in disaster recovery across the nation has 
earned him several awards, including the 2001 Kemper Award by the National 
AIA.  Mr. Harper has been awarded "Distinguished Alumnus of Texas Tech" for 
1997 and "Distinguished Alumnus, College of Architecture" for 1997.
Mr. Harper has served the City of Wichita Falls, Texas in the capacity of Mayor 
and as a member of the National Conference of Mayors, the National League of 
Cities; and the Board of Directors, Texas Municipal League.
Mr. Harper serves his Church, the United Methodist Church, and his University, 
Texas Tech, on many Boards and committees.  In addition to those honors listed 
above, he has been the recipient of many others from his Church, his City, his 
University and his Profession.
His wife, Betsy; his sons and daughters-in-law, Martin and Sara, and Mark and 
Teresa, along with five grandchildren, are his greatest joy.
G. Michael Hoover (Associated General Contractors of America)
Sundt Construction, Incorporation
P.O. Box 20687
Phoenix, AZ 85046
Phone: (602) 261-6700
G. Michael Hoover serves as Vice President and Estimating Manager for the 
Heavy Civil Division of Sundt Construction, Incorporated and is responsible for 
staffing and managing the estimating department, including the training and 
development of department personnel.  He is responsible for reviewing project 
estimate packages to ensure their accuracy and completeness.
Mr. Hoover began his career in the construction industry with the Sundt group of 
companies in 1978 serving on mechanical and civil projects.  He has served as 
Chief Estimator, Senior Project Manager, Project Manager, Project 
Superintendent, and Project Engineer on airport, highway and bridge projects, as 
well as industrial and municipal treatment plant facility construction work 
individually valued from $1 to over $150 million.
Mr. Hoover is a graduate of the University of Arizona with a Bachelor of Science 
degree in Mechanical Engineering.  He has also attained the practice level of 
Journeyman Carpenter and is a member of Union Local 2 since 1988.
Mr. Hoover is professionally affiliated with the Associated General Contractors of 
America and has served on the Board of Directors for the Arizona Chapter.  He is 
also a Transportation Committee Member and an active participant of the Sundt 
Management Program since 1999 to present.
Mr. Hoover believes strongly that Leadership Excellence Accelerates 
Performance.
Jon A. Oshel (National Association of County Engineers)
Association of Oregon Counties
P.O. Box 12729
Salem, OR 97309-0729
Phone: (503) 585-8351
Experience:
2000 to present	County Road Program Manager, Association of Oregon 
Counties
1982 to 2000	Public Works Director, Tillamook County
1978 to 1982	Consultant Engineer, Road Design/Construction
1975 to 1978	County Engineer, Deschutes County
1969 to 1975	Civil Engineer, Washington State Highway Department
During Jon's tenure as Tillamook County Director of Public Works he 
supervised over 70 major slide repairs on Tillamook County Roads.  He also 
managed the storm response and recovery of roadways during seven 
emergency and major disaster declaration events.
Award:
Oregon Counties Engineer of the Year 1987, 1991 & 1994
Education:
San Diego State University - Bachelor of Science, 1969
Registered Professional Engineer - State of Oregon
Professional Affiliations:
1982 to present	Oregon Association of County Engineers and Surveyors 
(OACES)
1985 to present	OACES Representative for Federal Forest Highway 
Program
1999 to 2000	OACES Liaison to AOC Board and Legislative Committee
1985 to present	American Public Works Association
1985 to present	National Association of County Engineers
2001	Federal Advisory Committee 10733
Expert Panel on Cost Estimating for the Public Assistance 
Program
Federal Emergency Management Agency
1995 to 2000	NACO Transportation Steering Committee
2000 to present	Oregon Partnership for Highway Quality Committee
ODOT Local Officials Advisory Committee
1997 to 2000	ODOT Highway Plan-Classification Committee
1999	ODOT Land Use and Environmental Laws Committee
1996	ODOT Strategic Planning Process (Re-Engineering)
1996	Staff, Governor's Transportation Initiative
1993	Member, Oregon Roads Finance Study (Forward Oregon)
1991	Member, Update of 1986 Oregon Roads Finance Study
Member, Oregon Roads Finance Study
(Making the Right Turn)
2002 to present	"Roads Scholar" Instructor
Norman H. Roush (American Association of State and Highway Transportation 
Officials)
West Virginia Department of Transportation
1900 Kanawha Boulevard East
Building 5
Charleston, WV 25305-0440
Phone: (304) 558-2804
Norman Roush is a native of Letart Falls, Ohio and has been a resident of West 
Virginia for 35 years.
He is a graduate of Ohio University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil 
Engineering.  Mr. Roush is licensed in the States of West Virginia and Ohio as a 
Registered Professional Engineer and a Registered Professional Land Surveyor.
The West Virginia Division of Highways has employed Mr. Roush for 36 years.  
In February 1998, he was appointed Deputy Commissioner and was appointed 
later to serve as Deputy Secretary of the West Virginia Department of 
Transportation as well.  He is, among other duties, responsible for coordinating 
development and liaison activities with City, County, State, and Federal agencies.
Previously, he was the Chief Engineer-Development, which carried the 
responsibility for all projects through their design and right-of-way stages, 
including management supervision of Roadway Design, Structures, Traffic 
Engineering, and Right of Way Divisions.
Mr. Roush has attended and spoken at several American Association of State and 
Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) committee meetings and has been a 
speaker for the Division on many occasions.  Mr. Roush serves on the AASHTO 
Task Force on Preconstruction Engineering Management and also serves on the 
Task Force on Geometric Design, which is developing the new "Green Book."  
Mr. Roush also serves on the Transportation Research Board Committee for 
Geometric Design and for Operational Effects of Geometrics.  He has served on 
various National Council of Highways Research Program (NCHRP) panels and is 
currently chairman of NCHRP Panel 20-7, Roadway Widths on Very Low 
Volume Roads.
A member of the AASHTO Design Committee for 20 years, Mr. Roush was the 
recipient of the Region II Design Award in 1986 and 1998 and the National 
Award of the Subcommittee on Design in 1989.
Mr. Roush is active with the Association for Retarded Citizens and is active in his 
United Methodist Church and community.  He has been married 43 years to his 
wife Janet and is the father of three children and the grandfather of six.
Laurence W. Zensinger (Federal Emergency Management Agency)
Federal Center Plaza
500 "C" Street, S.W., Room 326
Washington, D.C. 20472
Phone: (202) 646-3685
Laurence W. Zensinger serves as the Director of the Recovery Division in 
FEMA's Readiness, Response and Recovery Directorate.  The Recovery Division 
is responsible for policy development and oversight of the implementation of 
FEMA's Individual Assistance and Public Assistance Programs.  Mr. Zensinger 
also serves as Chair of the National Emergency Food and Shelter Board, a 
program which distributes more than $140 million annually to battle 
homelessness, and is the executive in charge of the Cerro Grande Fire Recovery 
program which is compensating victims of the Los Alamos fires that occurred in 
May 2000.  In addition, the Division is responsible for disaster victim registration 
and application processing.  As such, the Division manages three National 
Processing Services Centers located in Denton, Texas Hyattsville, Maryland and 
Mount Weather, Virginia.  These centers process an average of 300,000 disaster 
claims and 2 million phone calls per year.  
Mr. Zensinger's career with FEMA began in 1978 with the Federal Insurance 
Administration (FIA), then part of the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development.  As a flood insurance specialist with FIA, Mr. Zensinger was 
instrumental in the development and implementation of the first flooded property 
purchase and relocation program, under Section 1362 of the National Flood 
Insurance Act of 1968.  During his career at FEMA, Mr. Zensinger has held a 
number of positions in organizations responsible for implementing disaster relief 
programs, including Chief of the Hazard Mitigation Branch and Director of the 
Public Assistance and Program Coordination Divisions of the State and Local 
Programs Directorate, predecessor to the Response and Recovery Directorate.
Mr. Zensinger has also undertaken a variety of special assignments, including the 
coordination of the Midwest Flood Buyout program in 1993 and 1994, which 
resulted in the acquisition and removal from the floodplain of over 8,000 flood 
damaged structures.  In addition, he served as the Federal Coordinating Officer 
for DR-1008, the Northridge Earthquake during a critical period in 1995, which 
resulted in a complete restructuring and redirection of the office to assume its 
long term recovery mission.
Mr. Zensinger is a graduate of Valparaiso University in Valparaiso, Indiana with a 
Bachelor of Arts degree in Earth Sciences and of Southern Illinois University, 
with a Masters in City Planning.  He resides in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife, 
Margaret.