Benefits of Using ASTM Building Economics Standards for the 

Design, Construction, and Operation of Constructed Facilities 

Muthiah Kasi and Robert E. Chapman 

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

Applied Economics Office

Engineering Laboratory 

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8603 

NIST Special Publication 1098 
 
U.S. Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology

Benefits of Using ASTM Building Economics Standards for the 

Design, Construction, and Operation of Constructed Facilities 

Muthiah Kasi and Robert E. Chapman 

Sponsored by: 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Engineering Laboratory 

March 2012 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

John E. Bryson, Secretary 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY 

Patrick D. Gallagher, Undersecretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and 

Director 

 

NIST Special Publication 1098 

Applied Economics Office

Engineering Laboratory 

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8603 

iii 

Abstract 

This report provides an overview of the 26 standards developed within the ASTM 

Subcommittee on Building Economics, E06.81, along with a description of how these 

standards are being used to promote more cost-effective decisions for the design, 

construction, operation, and disposal of constructed facilities. The report includes 

descriptions of a terminology standard, seven standard classifications, five standard 

guides, and 13 standard practices. The standard classifications, standard guides, and 

standard practices are organized around four topic areas: (1) cost data presentation and 

analysis; (2) value analysis; (3) risk management; and (4) economic evaluation. The 

report contains a detailed case study illustrating how many of the subcommittee’s 

standards can be applied to a complex transportation project. The case illustration uses 

the design and construction of the Gateway Arch Bridge in Taylor, MI. The Gateway 

Arch Bridge was part of the reconstruction of Interstate 94 for Super Bowl XL held in 

2006. The case illustration discusses the bridge’s innovative design and engineering 

features, the extensive use of prefabricated components as cost and schedule control 

measures, and the use of ASTM standards to achieve a balance between performance and 

life-cycle economy. The Gateway Arch Bridge won six awards, including two national 

awards. A major criterion in its selection as an award recipient was its cost effectiveness. 

Keywords:

Bridges; buildings; construction; cost data; economic evaluation; functional elements; 

infrastructure; risk management; standards; UNIFORMAT II; value analysis 

 
iv 

 
v 

Preface 

This study was conducted by the Applied Economics Office in the Engineering 

Laboratory at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. This report provides 

an overview of the 26 standards developed within the ASTM Subcommittee on Building 

Economics. The report also contains a detailed case study illustrating how many of the 

subcommittee’s standards can be applied to a complex transportation project. The 

intended audience is the National Institute of Standards and Technology, standards and 

codes developers, architects, engineers, constructors, facility managers, and other 

construction industry stakeholders interested in reducing the costs of designing, 

constructing, and maintaining the Nation’s building stock and physical infrastructure. 

Disclaimer 

Certain trade names and company products are mentioned in the text in order to 

adequately specify the technical procedures and equipment used. In no case does such 

identification imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, nor does it imply that the products are necessarily the best 

available for the purpose. 

Disclaimer Regarding Non-Metrics Units 

The policy of the National Institute of Standards and Technology is to use metric units in 

all of its published materials. Because this report is intended for the U.S. construction 

industry that uses U.S. customary units, it is more practical and less confusing to include 

U.S. customary units as well as metric units. Measurement values in this report are 

therefore stated in metric units first, followed by the corresponding values in U.S. 

customary units within parentheses. 

Cover Photographs Credits 

Foreground: Cover image of ASTM Standards on Building Economics, 7th Edition, 

provided by ASTM International. Background: Ghosting of the Gateway Arch Bridge 

superstructure provided by Alfred Benesch & Company. 

 
vi 

Author Affiliations 

Muthiah Kasi, PE SE CVS, serves as Chairman of the Board at Alfred Benesch & 

Company. Mr. Kasi joined Alfred Benesch & Company in 1969. His experience at 

Benesch includes design and management of high rise and low rise buildings, long span 

river bridges and short span bridges, and urban and rural highways. Mr. Kasi is the 

Chairman of the ASTM Subcommittee on Building Economics, where for nearly 20 years 

he has been active in developing standards covering the design, construction, and 

operation of constructed facilities. 

Robert E. Chapman, Ph.D., is the Chief of the Applied Economics Office in the 

Engineering Laboratory at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 

Dr. Chapman joined NIST, formerly the National Bureau of Standards, in 1975. As 

Chief of the Applied Economics Office, he leads a group of economists that evaluate new 

technologies, processes, government programs, legislation, and codes and standards to 

determine efficient alternatives and measure their economic impacts. Since 1998, Dr. 

Chapman has chaired the Task Group on Techniques within the ASTM Subcommittee on 

Building Economics. 

 
vii 

Acknowledgements 

The authors wish to thank all those who contributed so many excellent ideas and 

suggestions for this report. They include: Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, Director of the 

Engineering Laboratory (EL) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST); Dr. William Grosshandler, EL Deputy Director for Building and Fire Research; 

and Mr. Simon P. Frechette, EL’s Systems Integration for Manufacturing and 

Construction Applications Program Manager, for their technical guidance, suggestions, 

and support. Special appreciation is extended to Dr. Ihab Darwish, Mr. Robert Tipton, 

Mr. Kenneth Holt, and Ms. Jayne Hill of Alfred Benesch & Company, for their technical 

contributions during the drafting and production of this manuscript. Special appreciation 

is extended to Mr. Mark E. Palmer and Dr. Christopher U. Brown of the EL’s Systems 

Integration Division for their guidance and insights. Special appreciation is extended to 

Dr. David T. Butry of the EL’s Applied Economics Office for his thorough review and 

many insights and to Ms. Carmen L. Pardo for her assistance in preparing the manuscript 

for review and publication. Special appreciation is also extended to Ms. Barbara Balboni, 

Senior Engineer RS Means; Mr. Robert P. Charette, Adjunct Professor Concordia 

University; Mr. Anthony L. Huxley, Construction Consultant; and Mr. Stephen Mawn, 

Manager Committee E06 on Performance of Buildings ASTM International, for their 

comments on an earlier draft of this report. The report has also benefitted from the 

review and technical comments provided by Dr. Nicos S. Martys of the EL’s Materials 

and Structural Systems Division. 

 
viii 

 
ix 

Table of Contents 

Abstract ............................................................................................................................. iii

Preface ................................................................................................................................ v

Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... vii

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background ......................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Purpose ................................................................................................................ 3

1.3 Scope and Approach ........................................................................................... 3

1.4 A Note on Key Cross-Cutting Themes ............................................................... 4

2 Applications of ASTM Building Economics Standards ......................................... 7

2.1 Cost Data Presentation and Analysis .................................................................. 7

2.2 Value Analysis .................................................................................................. 13

2.3 Risk Management ............................................................................................. 15

2.4 Economic Evaluation ........................................................................................ 19

3 A Case Study of the Gateway Arch Bridge: How Innovative Design and 

Economics Come Together ..................................................................................... 27

3.1 Summary of Key Characteristics and Innovative Design Features .................. 27

3.2 Cost Accounting Framework ............................................................................ 37

3.3 Cost Analysis of the Gateway Arch Bridge Using the UNIFORMAT II 

Elemental Classification and Example Sub Classification ........................................... 39

3.4 Risk Management ............................................................................................. 42

4 Summary and Recommendations for Further Research ..................................... 51

4.1 Summary ........................................................................................................... 51

4.2 Recommendations for Further Research ........................................................... 51

References ........................................................................................................................ 53

 
x 

List of Figures 

Figure 3.1 Overhead View of the Gateway Arch Bridge ................................................. 27

Figure 3.2 Gateway Arch Bridge as Seen from Telegraph Road .................................... 28

Figure 3.3 Gateway Arch Bridge as Seen from I-94 ....................................................... 28

Figure 3.4 Value/Mismatch Graph .................................................................................. 29

Figure 3.5 Analysis of Arch Types .................................................................................. 30

Figure 3.6 Gateway Arch Bridge Foundation System ..................................................... 30

Figure 3.7 Analysis of Arch Rib Geometry ..................................................................... 31

Figure 3.8 Longitudinal View of the Arch Ribs .............................................................. 32

Figure 3.9 Transverse View of the Arch Ribs Illustrates Unequal Lengths .................... 32

Figure 3.10 Maintenance of Arch Ribs ............................................................................ 33

Figure 3.11 Access Opening to the Arch Rib .................................................................. 34

Figure 3.12 Redundancy of Hanger Assembly ................................................................ 34

Figure 3.13 Hanger Assembly and Neoprene Transition Boots ...................................... 35

Figure 3.14 Analysis of Floor System and Transverse Girders ....................................... 36

Figure 3.15 Optimization of Floor System ...................................................................... 36

Figure 3.16 Configuration of Transverse Girders ............................................................ 37

Figure 3.17 Cost Distribution of Selected Group Elements and Individual Elements for 

the Gateway Arch Bridge .......................................................................................... 41

Figure 3.18 Benefits of Prefabrication: Full Lay-Down Assembly ................................. 46

Figure 3.19 Benefits of Prefabrication: Drilling Splice Connection ................................ 47

Figure 3.20 Comparison of the Two Methods for Pouring and Curing the Concrete 

Bridge Deck .............................................................................................................. 49

List of Tables 

Table 2.1 Building Economics Standards Focused on Compiling, Analyzing, 

Reporting, and Summarizing Cost Data ..................................................................... 8

Table 2.2 Building Economics Standard Practices for Measuring the Value of 

Construction-Related Systems and Attributes .......................................................... 14

Table 2.3 Building Economics Standards for Measuring and Managing Risk ............. 16

Table 2.4 Building Economics Standards for Measuring Economic Performance and 

Reporting the Results of an Economic Evaluation ................................................... 20

Table 2.5 Summary of Appropriateness of Each Standardized Evaluation Method for 

Each Decision Type .................................................................................................. 24

Table 3.1 Classification Hierarchy for Program Management-Related Costs ................. 38

Table 3.2 Classification Hierarchy for Risk Management-Related Costs ....................... 38

Table 3.3 Cost Analysis of the Gateway Arch Bridge Using the UNIFORMAT II 

Elemental Classification and Example Sub Classification ....................................... 40

Table 3.4 Changes in Cost by Phase Due to Design Changes Resulting from Application 

of ASTM E06.81 Standards ...................................................................................... 44

Table 3.5 Risk Comparisons from the Designer’s/Owner’s Perspective ......................... 48

Table 3.6 Risk Comparisons from the Contractor’s Perspective ..................................... 50
1 

1 Introduction 

1.1 Background 

Organized in 1898, ASTM International is a developer and publisher of technical 

information designed to promote understanding and advancement of technology and to 

ensure the quality of commodities and services and the safety of products. ASTM’s 

primary mission is to develop voluntary industry consensus standards for materials, 

products, systems, and services. It provides a forum for producers, users, ultimate 

customers, and those having a general interest, such as representatives of government and 

academia, to meet on common ground to write standards that best meet their needs. 

The Building Economics Subcommittee was established in 1979; it is one of several 

technical subcommittees within ASTM Committee E06 on the Performance of Buildings. 

The Building Economics Subcommittee, E06.81, develops standards that serve as 

guidelines for making building and infrastructure choice, design, construction, 

operations, clean-up, and disposal decisions based on economic analysis. E06.81 

standards include: definitions of economic techniques and terms; practices on methods 

related to economic evaluation; guides to help in the selection of appropriate economic 

methods and techniques; classifications of building, construction, and site-related 

elements or components; and adjuncts of data, software, techniques, and other aids that 

support use of the standards. The aim is to provide the building and construction 

community with standard terminology and evaluation practices that will guide economic 

evaluation of all types of investment over a project’s life cycle—ranging from the 

planning, programming, and design phases through the construction, operations, 

decommissioning, and disposal phases. Intended users of the standards and adjuncts are: 

manufacturers and producers; federal, state, and local government agencies; private 

building owners; constructors; building code bodies; architectural/engineering firms; 

consumers’ groups; trade associations; research groups; consulting firms; and 

universities. 

The subcommittee’s early efforts focused primarily on the application of economic 

analysis to energy conservation measures in buildings.1, 2 These efforts resulted in a 

standard practice for measuring the life-cycle costs of buildings and building systems, 

E 917.3

 E 917 was first issued by ASTM in 1983. Over the ensuing years, E 917 has 

been revised and expanded to meet new and emerging needs. 

 

1

 Ruegg, Rosalie T., Petersen, Stephen R., and Marshall, Harold E. 1980. Recommended Practice for 

Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildings and Building Systems, NBSIR 80-2040. Gaithersburg, MD: 

National Bureau of Standards. 

2

 Ruegg, Rosalie, T., and Petersen, Stephen R. 1987. Comprehensive Guide for Least-Cost Energy 

Decisions, NBS Special Publication 709. Gaithersburg, MD: National Bureau of Standards. 3

 ASTM International. “Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildings and Building Systems,” 

E 917, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 
2 

The structured approach taken in ASTM Standard Practice E 917 allowed additional 

measures of economic performance to be derived from the various input factors required 

to calculate life-cycle costs. The concept of a savings-to-investment ratio, where cost 

avoidance was of paramount importance, was developed as an alternative to the 

traditional benefit-to-cost ratio that is frequently used in economic analyses—in some 

cases inappropriately. Standard Practice E 9644 is especially significant because it both 

established the savings-to-investment ratio (SIR) methodology and specified a “rule set” 

for the proper calculation and interpretation of the benefit-to-cost ratio. Three additional 

practices were then issued by ASTM shortly thereafter; they were concerned with the 

measurement of: (1) internal rates of return, E 1057;5 (2) net benefits and net savings, 

E 1074;6 and (3) payback, E 1121.7

In the late 1980s, two standards development efforts were launched that served to 

broaden the scope of the subcommittee’s activities. These efforts were concerned with 

the treatment of risk and uncertainty8 and the concept of an elemental classification.9 

Although the treatment of risk and uncertainty, as described in ASTM Standard Guide 

E 1369,10 has important implications for the calculation and interpretation of the 

measures of economic performance specified in ASTM Standard Practices E 917, E 964, 

E 1057, E 1074, and E 1121, the guidance provided in E 1369 strengthened the 

subcommittee’s activities in the discipline of decision science. The application of 

decision science in the treatment of risk-informed decision making has emerged as a 

common thread across many of the E06.81 standards. The concept of an elemental 

classification further opened the subcommittee to new applications of economic analysis 

in constructed facilities. The development of the UNIFORMAT II elemental 

classification was both the most challenging and most rewarding effort that the 

subcommittee had undertaken. It was challenging due to the diverse set of stakeholders 

that needed to come to consensus on its purpose and its structure. It was rewarding 

 

4

 ASTM International. “Practice for Measuring Benefit-to-Cost and Savings-to-Investment Ratios for 

Buildings and Building Systems,” E 964, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.11. West 

Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 

5

 ASTM International. “Practice for Measuring Internal Rate of Return and Adjusted Internal Rate of 

Return for Investments in Buildings and Building Systems,” E 1057, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 

2010, Vol. 4.11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 6

 ASTM International. “Practice for Measuring Net Benefits and Net Savings for Investments in Buildings 

and Building Systems,” E 1074, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.11. West Conshohocken, 

PA: ASTM International. 

7

 ASTM International. “Practice for Measuring Payback for Investments in Buildings and Building 

Systems,” E 1121, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM 

International. 

8

 Marshall, Harold E. 1988. Techniques for Treating Uncertainty and Risk in the Economic Evaluation of 

Building Investments, NIST Special Publication 757. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and 

Technology. 

9

 Bowen, Brian, Charette, Robert P., and Marshall, Harold E. 1992. UNIFORMAT II: A Recommended 

Classification for Building Elements and Related Sitework, NIST Special Publication 841. Gaithersburg, 

MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

10 ASTM International. “Guide for Selecting Techniques for Treating Uncertainty and Risk in the 

Economic Evaluation of Buildings and Building Systems,” E 1369, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 

2010, Vol. 4.11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 
3 

because its release as ASTM Standard Classification E 155711 brought new members to 

the subcommittee, many of whom were interested in other types of constructed facilities 

as well as buildings. 

To date, the Building Economics Subcommittee has produced 26 standards, two adjuncts, 

and two software products.12 These standards cover a wide variety of constructed 

facilities and serve as decision support tools for a wide range of applications.13

1.2 Purpose 

The purpose of this report is twofold. First, this report provides an overview of the 26 

standards developed within the ASTM Subcommittee on Building Economics along with 

a description of how these standards are being used to promote more cost-effective 

decisions for the design, construction, operation, and disposal of constructed facilities. 

Second, the report contains a detailed case study illustrating how many of the 

subcommittee’s standards can be applied to a complex transportation project. 

1.3 Scope and Approach 

The report consists of three chapters in addition to the Introduction. The Introduction 

concludes with a discussion of key cross-cutting themes. These themes include basic 

economic concepts, project components, and the life-cycle phases of a typical constructed 

facility. 

Chapter 2 provides an overview of the 26 standards developed within the ASTM 

Subcommittee on Building Economics. Chapter 2 contains four sections; the sections 

group the ASTM E06.81 standards by topic: (1) cost data presentation and analysis; (2) 

value analysis; (3) risk management; and (4) economic evaluation. Section 2.1 describes 

the 10 standards focused on compiling, analyzing, reporting, and summarizing cost data. 

Section 2.2 describes three standard practices for measuring the value of constructionrelated systems and attributes. Section 2.3 describes five standards for measuring and 

managing risk. Section 2.4 describes seven standards for measuring economic 

performance and for reporting the results of an economic evaluation. 

Chapter 3 contains a detailed case study illustrating how many of the subcommittee’s 

standards can be applied to a complex transportation project. The case illustration uses 

the design and construction of the Gateway Arch Bridge in Taylor, MI. The Gateway 

Arch Bridge was part of the reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) for Super Bowl XL held 

in 2006. The case illustration discusses the bridge’s innovative design and engineering 

 

11 ASTM International. “Classification for Building Elements and Related Sitework—UNIFORMAT II,” 

E 1557, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 12 Readers interested in purchasing copies of individual standards, adjuncts, or software products may 

obtain them by contacting ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. 13 Readers interested in the E06.81 compilation of standards (ASTM International. 2012. ASTM Standards 

on Building Economics. 7th Edition. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.) may obtain copies 

from ASTM International Headquarters by ordering BLDGECON12, or by contacting ASTM Customer 

Service at service@astm.org. 
4 

features, the extensive use of prefabricated components as cost and schedule control 

measures, and the use of ASTM standards to achieve a balance between performance and 

life-cycle economy. The Gateway Arch Bridge won six awards, including two national 

awards. A major criterion in its selection as an award recipient was its cost effectiveness. 

Chapter 4 provides a summary and recommendations for further research. Specifically, 

four additional UNIFORMAT II classifications are proposed for development: (1) 

tunnels; (2) highways; (3) railroads; and (4) water treatment and distribution. Each of 

these classifications corresponds to a critical infrastructure need identified in the 

American Society of Civil Engineers Report Card for America’s Infrastructure.

14

1.4 A Note on Key Cross-Cutting Themes 

Economics deals with the efficient allocation of resources. In the context of constructed 

facilities, these resources include requirements, plans, labor, materials, equipment, 

information, and physical components, all of which have dollar values associated with 

them. Thus, economics helps decision makers choose more cost-effective combinations 

of resources. 

Once the need for a new, expanded, or modernized constructed facility has been 

identified, a “project” to deliver that facility comes into being. The project delivery 

process begins when the client identifies the need and concludes when the constructed 

facility is turned over to the client. The project delivery process, which may last 

anywhere from a few months to a few years, is not the end of the life-cycle of a 

constructed facility. The life-cycle of a typical constructed facility often spans many 

decades and is largely concerned with the operation and maintenance activities required 

to meet the client’s need. Therefore, decisions made during the project delivery process 

may have significant financial and operational impacts over the course of a constructed 

facility’s life cycle. These impacts are measured via cash flows, both negative due to 

increased operational expenses and positive due to increased sales of goods and services. 

The time-value of money concept is used in order to deal with the different timing of cash 

flows associated with the constructed facility. Basically, this is done through the use of a 

discount rate, which equates or discounts dollars occurring in different years to a 

common time, referred to as the base year. 

Although the project may be the construction of a new building, bridge, or industrial 

facility, the focus of the economic evaluation may be the entire facility, a system, a 

component, or a material. For example, if the client desires a net-zero energy,15 highperformance building, the emphasis might be primarily on the building’s heating 

ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) system and the integrity of its exterior 

envelope. If the client is also interested in having a green building, environmental 

attributes associated with building materials will be of interest. In such cases, software 

 

14 American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2009. ASCE 2009 Report Card for America’s 

Infrastructure. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers. 15 A net-zero energy building is one that produces as much energy as it consumes. 
5 

tools, such as Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES),16 will 

complement the various standards referenced in Chapter 2. 

Because the life cycle of a constructed facility may span many decades, it is useful to 

define the various phases in the life cycle. Commonly used phases in the life cycle of a 

constructed facility are: (1) planning; (2) programming; (3) design; (4) construction; (5) 

operations; and (6) disposal. A brief description of each phase follows. Readers 

interested in a more detailed description of each phase are referred to Charette and 

Marshall.17

Phase 1—Planning: This is the period during which a need is identified and alternatives 

are developed and analyzed for satisfying the need. Site requirements are defined and 

analyzed for each alternative. Preliminary schedules and cost estimates are made. If a 

decision to proceed is made, necessary authorizations and appropriations are obtained to 

proceed with the programming phase. 

Phase 2—Programming: This is the period during which project requirements in terms 

of scope, quality, cost, and schedule are defined. The programming phase defines user 

needs and sets objectives and guidelines for design professionals. In addition, owners, 

users, designers, and project managers use the programming phase to evaluate the 

suitability of proposed design solutions. Key outputs from the programming phase 

include: (1) functional requirements for the facility and the site; (2) performance 

specifications and technical requirements;18 (3) master schedule for design and 

construction tasks, milestones, and completion dates; and (4) cost estimate.19 

Phase 3—Design: This is the period during which the Phase 2 stated needs are 

translated into plans and specifications. Detailed solutions to technical requirements, 

updated cost estimates, and revised schedules are submitted for client approval as the 

design progresses. Funds are appropriated, bids requested, and contracts awarded. The 

design phase is often subdivided into three sub-phases: schematic design, design 

development, and construction documents. Schematic design establishes the general 

scope, conceptual design, and the scale relationships among the parts of the project. The 

primary goal is to clearly define a feasible concept within the allocated budget in a form 

that the client understands and approves before proceeding to design development. In 

design development, all aspects of the design for each discipline are developed and 

coordinated. Design development ends with approval by the client of the plans, projected 

cost, and schedule. In the construction documents sub-phase, the design team works on 

 

16 Lippiatt, Barbara C. 2007. BEES 4.0: Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability Technical 

Manual and User Guide, NISTIR 7423. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and 

Technology. 

17 Charette, Robert P., and Marshall, Harold E. 1999. UNIFORMAT II: Elemental Classification for 

Building Specifications, Cost Estimating, and Cost Analysis, NISTIR 6389. Gaithersburg, MD: National 

Institute of Standards and Technology. 

18 Many organizations incorporate technical requirements in their “design standards” documentation. 

19 This estimate is also a cost plan for comparing subsequent estimates and monitoring and controlling costs 

as design progresses. 
6 

the final material and system selections, details, and dimensions. Final plans and 

construction specifications are provided to bidders, and contracts are awarded. 

Phase 4—Construction: This is the period during which plans and specifications are 

implemented into a finished structure that conforms to the specification requirements, 

construction schedule, and budget. Following commissioning, or start-up for industrial 

facilities, the constructed facility is ready for use by the client. 

Phase 5—Operations: This is the longest phase of a constructed facility’s life cycle, 

during which it is operated to fulfill the client’s objectives. During this phase, a 

constructed facility may be retrofitted or recycled for a new function any number of 

times. 

Phase 6—Disposal: This phase involves the decommissioning of the constructed 

facility, which often results in its removal from the site. 

The phases of a constructed facility’s life cycle are especially important because they 

often drive the use of specific standards. Decisions made in Phases 1 through 4 may have 

significant cost impacts in Phase 5, where operations and maintenance costs dominate. 

For this reason, life-cycle cost analysis and elemental classifications are most effective 

when used in the early stages of the constructed facility’s life cycle. Using these and 

other building economics standards in the early life cycle phases both reduces the cost of 

applying the standards and increases the expected cost savings from better-informed 

selections of materials, components, and systems. 

The UNIFORMAT II elemental classification for buildings and related sitework is 

exceptionally versatile in that it has well-defined applications in all six life-cycle phases. 

In addition, UNIFORMAT II is the basis for several widely used cost estimating guides, 

most notably those published by RS Means20 and Whitestone Research.21 As a result of 

UNIFORMAT II’s broad applicability, the Building Economics Subcommittee has 

developed a set of guidelines for use in establishing a family of UNIFORMAT II 

elemental classifications. It is believed that future UNIFORMAT II elemental 

classifications for bridges and other types of constructed facilities will benefit a wide 

variety of construction industry stakeholders. 

 

 

20 RS Means. 2010. Building Construction Cost Data: 68th Annual Edition. Kingston, MA: Reed 

Construction Data, Inc. 

21 Whitestone Research. 2010. Facility Maintenance and Repair Cost Reference 2010-2011: 15th Edition. 

Santa Barbara, CA: Whitestone Research. 
7 

2 Applications of ASTM Building Economics Standards 

This chapter provides an overview of the 26 standards developed within the ASTM 

Subcommittee on Building Economics along with a description of how these standards 

are being used to promote more cost-effective decisions for the design, construction, 

operation, and disposal of constructed facilities. The chapter contains four sections; the 

sections group the ASTM E06.81 standards by topic: (1) cost data presentation and 

analysis; (2) value analysis; (3) risk management; and (4) economic evaluation. 

Terminology is an important part in all of the E06.81 standards. ASTM Standard 

Terminology of Building Economics, E 833,22 provides definitions of economic 

techniques and terms used in the 25 standards described in Sections 2.1 through 2.4. The 

terminology standard, E 833, is constantly evolving as new standards are developed by 

the subcommittee. 

2.1 Cost Data Presentation and Analysis 

Table 2.1 lists building economics standards focused on compiling, analyzing, reporting, 

and summarizing cost data. Table 2.1 lists 10 standards—six standard classifications, 

one standard guide, and three standard practices. Brief descriptions of each standard are 

given in the text which follows. 

E 1557: Standard Classification for Building Elements and Related Sitework—

UNIFORMAT II 

ASTM Standard Classification E 155723 establishes a classification of building elements 

and related sitework. Elements, as defined in E 1557, are major components common to 

most buildings. Elements usually perform a given function, regardless of the design 

specification, construction method, or materials used. E 1557 serves as a consistent 

reference for analysis, evaluation, and monitoring during feasibility, planning, and design 

stages of buildings. Using UNIFORMAT II ensures consistency in economic evaluation 

of building-related projects over time and from project to project. E 1557 also enhances 

reporting at all stages in construction—from planning through the preparation of working 

documents, construction, maintenance, rehabilitation, and disposal. E 1557 excludes 

specialized process equipment related to a building’s functional use but does include 

furnishings and equipment. The UNIFORMAT II hierarchy consists of three levels—

Level 1, Major Group Elements; Level 2, Group Elements; and Level 3, Individual 

Elements. Thus, the core concept of an element resides at Level 3. 

The latest version of E 1557 focuses primarily on buildings but has broad applicability to 

other types of constructed entities. Current applications of E 1557 include: planning 

estimates; program estimates; preliminary project descriptions; preliminary construction 

 

22 ASTM International. “Terminology of Building Economics,” E 833, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 

2010, Vol. 4.11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 23 ASTM International. “Classification of Building Elements and Related Sitework—UNIFORMAT II,” 

E 1557, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 
8 

schedules and cash flow projections; design phase estimates; CAD layering and building 

information modeling (BIM); life-cycle cost analysis reporting; checklists for technical 

design reviews; construction progress reporting and interim payments; construction 

claims analysis; building condition assessment; organizing design, engineering, and 

construction cost information for manuals and databases; and organizing maintenance 

and life-cycle cost data.24

Table 2.1 Building Economics Standards Focused on Compiling, Analyzing, 

Reporting, and Summarizing Cost Data

Standard Title

E 1557 Standard Classification for Building Elements and Related Sitework‐UNIFORMAT II

E 1804

Standard Practice for Performing and Reporting Cost Analysis During the Design

Phase of a Project

E 2083

Standard Classification for Building Construction Field Requirements and Office

Overhead and Profit

E 2103 Standard Classification for Bridge Elements and Related Approach Work

E 2150

Standard Classification for Life‐Cycle Environmental Work Elements‐

Environmental Cost Element Structure

E 2166 Standard Practice for Organizing and Managing Building Data

E 2514

Standard Practice for Presentation Format of Elemental Cost Estimates,

Summaries, and Analyses

E 2516 Standard Classification for Cost Estimate Classification System

E 2620 Standard Classification for Program and Project Estimate Summaries

E 2637

Standard Guide for Utilizing the Environmental Cost Element Structure Presented

by Classification E 2150

The widespread use of E 1557 sparked interest in standard classifications for other types 

of constructed entities. Several ASTM standard classifications were subsequently 

 

24 Charette, Robert P., and Marshall, Harold E. 1999. UNIFORMAT II: Elemental Classification for 

Building Specifications, Cost Estimating, and Cost Analysis, NISTIR 6389. Gaithersburg, MD: National 

Institute of Standards and Technology. 
9 

developed, most notably a bridge-related classification, E 2103.25 However, standard 

classification E 2103 differed from the underlying “elemental” concept that was at the 

heart of E 1557. To address the need for a more rigorous “family” of classification 

standards based on the UNIFORMAT II elemental concept, the Building Economics 

Subcommittee, ASTM E06.81, formed a task group charged with the development of a 

set of “Guidelines for Developing UNIFORMAT II Standard Classifications.”26 The 

UNIFORMAT II Guidelines were first approved by the Building Economics 

Subcommittee in April 2009. 

E 1804: Standard Practice for Performing and Reporting Cost Analysis During the 

Design Phase of a Project 

ASTM Standard Practice E 180427 provides an organized approach for cost analysis 

during the design phase of a construction project. The practice presents the necessary 

information for the design professional and owners to make decisions. E 1804 

establishes a procedure for formatting the final project information for its use in 

forecasting the cost of future projects. The practice increases the level of 

communication, provides an organized approach to cost control during the design of a 

project, and also provides a means of identifying extraordinary cost items and changes in 

assumptions between estimates. Users of E 1804 include owners, developers, 

contractors, cost professionals, estimators, architects, engineers, specification writers, 

quantity surveyors, and anyone charged with the responsibility of successfully managing 

the design of a building within a specified budget. Use of the E 1804 reporting format is 

recommended when: (1) contracting for design cost analysis services; (2) comparing the 

current design costs to a previous estimate; and (3) responding to each design phase. 

This practice provides a tool for analyzing design options and examining strategies to 

maintain the building budget. 

E 2083: Standard Classification for Building Construction Field Requirements and 

Office Overhead and Profit 

ASTM Standard Classification E 208328 covers field requirements, office overhead, and 

profit for use in construction estimating. E 2083 is common to all forms of construction, 

and its components are an integral part of any construction cost estimate. Thus, this 

classification defines an integral part of any construction estimate and cost record. 

E 2083 classifies the non-permanent portion of the construction activity that is essential 

to allow physical implementation of the required work to take place. The classification 

 

25 ASTM International. “Classification for Bridge Elements and Related Approach Work,” E 2103, Annual 

Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 26 ASTM International. “Guidelines for Developing UNIFORMAT II Standard Classifications,” Working 

Paper. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 

27 ASTM International. “Practice for Performing and Reporting Cost Analysis During the Design Phase of a 

Project,” E 1804, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM 

International. 

28 ASTM International. “Classification for Building Construction Field Requirements and Office Overhead 

and Profit,” E 2083, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM 

International. 
10 

serves as a consistent reference for analysis, evaluation, and monitoring during the 

planning, programming, design, and construction phases of building. Used in 

conjunction with UNIFORMAT II, E 1557, and other elemental classifications, including 

ASTM Standard Classification E 2168, it also ensures consistency in the economic 

evaluation of construction work across time and from project to project. Through 

consistency in estimating and cost recording, E 2083 enhances reporting at all stages in 

construction—from planning and programming through the preparation of working 

documents, construction, maintenance, rehabilitation, and disposal—and is a necessary 

part of the reporting process described in ASTM Standard Practice E 1804. This 

classification is sufficiently generic to allow its use in estimating all forms of 

construction work and through all stages of planning, design, use, and disposal. 

Additionally, it is appropriate for use in both elemental estimates and trade estimates. 

E 2103: Standard Classification for Bridge Elements and Related Approach Work 

ASTM Standard Classification E 2103 applies to bridges and related approach work. It 

excludes specialized structures related to general highway use, but it does include bridge 

parapets, medians, drainage, and barriers needed to lessen vehicular impact. Although it 

follows the UNIFORMAT II hierarchy which consists of three levels—Level 1, Major 

Group Elements; Level 2, Group Elements; and Level 3, Individual Elements—it differs 

from the UNIFORMAT II elemental classification hierarchy in several ways that limits 

its applicability. Consequently, a major revision of E 2103 was initiated early in 2011. 

The proposed major revision of E 2103 is presented in a companion report;29 the 

proposed major revision is fully consistent with the UNIFORMAT II Guidelines 

document established by the ASTM E06.81 Subcommittee on Building Economics. The 

major revision of E 2103 was approved and reissued by ASTM in November 2011; it will 

promote its relevance, understanding, and acceptance in the bridge industry. The major 

revision, retitled Standard Classification of Bridge Elements—UNIFORMAT II, E 2103-

11, will provide the basis for a comprehensive data set of bridge-related costs that will 

enable public and private decision makers to choose more cost-effective solutions for the 

design and construction of new bridges and the maintenance and repair of existing 

bridges across the Nation. 

E 2150: Standard Classification for Life-Cycle Environmental Work Elements—

Environmental Cost Element Structure 

ASTM Standard Classification E 215030 provides a comprehensive hierarchy of elements 

for life-cycle environmental work. The classification is based on the Environmental Cost 

Element Structure (ECES) developed by the Interagency Environmental Cost 

Engineering Committee to increase the effectiveness of cost management for federal 

 

29 Muthiah Kasi and Robert E. Chapman. 2011. Proposed UNIFORMAT II Classification of Bridge 

Elements, NIST Special Publication 1122. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and 

Technology. 

30 ASTM International. “Classification for Life-Cycle Environmental Work Elements—Environmental Cost 

Element Structure,” E 2150, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.12. West Conshohocken, PA: 

ASTM International. 
11 

environmental remediation projects.31 Elements, as defined in E 2150, are major 

components common to environmental remediation projects. The elements represent the 

life-cycle activities for environmental remediation projects regardless of the project 

design specification, construction method, technology type, or materials used. The 

classification serves as a consistent reference for cost estimating, analysis, and 

monitoring during the various phases of the project life cycle. Using E 2150 ensures 

consistency, both over time and from project to project, in the cost management and 

performance measurement of environmental projects. It also enhances reporting at all 

phases of an environmental remediation project, from assessment and studies through 

design, construction, operations and maintenance, and surveillance and long-term 

monitoring. E 2150 applies to all environmental work, including environmental 

restoration, waste management, decontamination and decommissioning, surveillance and 

long-term monitoring, and technology development. The use of E 2150 increases the 

level of standardization, uniformity, and consistency of collected environmental project 

costs. Such uniformity and standardization allows for ease of understanding project 

costs, provides a common cost language for sharing and comparing cost information, and 

allows for easier analysis and calibration of cost data. E 2150 can also be used as a 

checklist of activities to be completed in environmental remediation projects. 

The E 2150 standard is limited to two levels. Level 1 depicts the life-cycle phases or 

time-frame of environmental work. Level 2 of the classification represents the major 

work elements that need to be performed in an environmental project. The 

Environmental Cost Element Structure Adjunct32 supports the application of the E 2150 

standard. The Adjunct provides three additional, complementary ECES levels (Levels 3, 

4, and 5) to the E 2150 standard’s Levels 1 and 2. The lower levels of the ECES are 

essential for a complete description of environmental projects, and they provide the 

supporting detail to the classification standard. 

E 2166: Standard Practice for Organizing and Managing Building Data 

ASTM Standard Practice E 216633 covers the organization of building information to 

support informed decision making. The kinds of data considered in this practice include 

text, numeric, and graphic data. The system of organization is applicable to a wide range 

of data collection and organization from routine in-depth analysis of a single building, to 

situations where many buildings must be evaluated and prioritized in a short time frame. 

The organizational structure is based on UNIFORMAT II, E 1557, a system which 

groups building elements according to the way buildings are constructed and function. 

Use this practice to organize information that describes new or existing buildings of any 

size. The UNIFORMAT II hierarchy enables the user to focus on building elements in 

functionally consistent groups. It can be applied by an administrator initiating a data 

 

31 U.S. Department of Energy. 2002. Environmental Cost Element Structure. Washington, DC: Interagency 

Environmental Cost Engineering Committee. 

32 Available from ASTM International Headquarters by ordering Adjunct No. ADJE2150, or by contacting 

ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. 

33 ASTM International. “Practice for Organizing and Managing Building Data,” E 2166, Annual Book of 

ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.12. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 
12 

system as a facility standard, as well as a consultant reporting on building conditions. A 

consistent method of arrangement for subject matter expedites the preparation and use of 

source documents, and simplifies the process of comparing information from several 

sources. This practice is suitable for arranging the content of individual reports, 

managing physical files, as well as automated data applications. E 2166 provides a 

consistent and comprehensive outline suitable to track the evolution of specific building 

conditions in one or many buildings. This practice can be applied to historical building 

data as well as new information. 

E 2514: Standard Practice for Presentation Format of Elemental Cost Estimates, 

Summaries, and Analyses 

ASTM Standard Practice E 251434 covers the concurrent use of relevant ASTM standards 

for the preparation of elemental cost estimates, summaries, and analyses and specifically 

their presentation in a concise, consistent, and logical manner. E 2514 provides a 

framework for elemental cost presentation, especially when used for design stage 

construction cost estimating of buildings. The standard also: (1) identifies three 

arrangements—estimate, summary, and analysis—of an elemental cost presentation; (2) 

provides conventions for use in completing these presentations; and (3) provides 

suggestions for some typical uses, including reporting, error checking, change tracking, 

and comparison, through the planning, design, construction and final archival record 

stages common to all building projects. E 2514 is about arrangement, format, and 

presentation only; it is not an estimating manual. 

E 2516: Standard Classification for Cost Estimate Classification System 

ASTM Standard Classification E 251635 provides a generic classification system for cost 

estimates and provides guidelines for applying the classification to cost estimates. This 

classification maps the phases and stages of cost estimating to a generic maturity and 

quality matrix, keyed to a level of project definition, that can be applied across a wide 

variety of industries. E 2516 has been developed in a way that: (1) provides a common 

understanding of the concepts involved with classifying cost estimates; (2) defines and 

correlates the major characteristics used in classifying cost estimates; and (3) uses the 

degree of project definition as the primary characteristic used to characterize estimate 

classes. Use of this classification will improve communication among all stakeholders 

involved in preparing, evaluating, and using cost estimates. Estimate classifications 

provide valuable additional reporting information when used as an adjunct to ASTM 

Standard Practice E 1804. 

 

 

34 ASTM International. “Practice for Presentation Format of Elemental Cost Estimates, Summaries, and 

Analyses,” E 2514, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.12. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM 

International. 

35 ASTM International. “Classification for Cost Estimate Classification System,” E 2516, Annual Book of 

ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.12. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 
13 

E 2620: Standard Classification for Program and Project Estimate Summaries 

ASTM Standard Classification E 262036 establishes a classification of cost summaries for 

use when estimating program and project costs. Program and project estimates are a 

necessary part of planning and implementing any program of work. These estimates are 

used by persons involved in the planning and management of programs and projects. 

They are an essential part of establishing initial budgets and provide a framework for 

continuing updates, permitting cost control through the life of a program and its various 

projects. Users include owners, developers, facilities programmers, financial managers, 

company controllers, executives, program managers, project managers, and specialist 

cost planners, including life-cycle cost analysts. 

E 2637: Standard Guide for Utilizing the Environmental Cost Element Structure 

Presented by Classification E 2150 

The Environmental Cost Element Structure (ECES) covered by the E 2150 standard and 

the Adjunct to E 2150 provides a consistent and comprehensive structure across all 

phases of environmental remediation projects and is a tool to improve cost management 

of those projects. ASTM Standard Guide E 263737 facilitates the application of the 

E 2150 standard to any environmental remediation project, without regard to project size. 

The E 2150 standard establishes the broad, top-level framework for environmental 

remediation projects by providing a hierarchical list of project elements to two levels of 

detail. Its associated Adjunct supports the top-level structure by providing more detailed 

elements and definitions of the ECES to three additional levels of detail. Although it is 

assumed that the user is familiar with ASTM Standard Classification E 2150, much of the 

content of the classification is contained in this guide to relieve the user of the burden of 

back-and-forth referencing during use. 

2.2 Value Analysis 

Table 2.2 lists three standard practices for measuring the value of construction-related 

systems and attributes. Brief descriptions of each standard are given in the text which 

follows. 

E 1699: Standard Practice for Performing Value Analysis (VA) of Buildings and 

Building Systems and Other Constructed Projects 

ASTM Standard Practice E 169938 covers a procedure for defining and satisfying the 

requirements of the user’s/owner’s project. A multidisciplinary team uses the procedure 

 

36 ASTM International. “Classification for Program and Project Estimate Summaries,” E 2620, Annual 

Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.12. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 37 ASTM International. “Guide for Utilizing the Environmental Cost Element Structure Presented by 

Classification E 2150,” E 2637, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.12. West Conshohocken, 

PA: ASTM International. 

38 ASTM International. “Practice for Performing Value Analysis (VA) of Buildings and Building Systems 

and Other Constructed Projects,” E 1699, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.11. West 

Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 
14 

to convert design criteria and specifications into descriptions of project functions and 

then relates these functions to revenues and costs. This is a procedure to develop 

alternatives that meet the constructed facility’s required functions. Estimate the costs for 

each alternative. Provide the user/owner with specific, technically accurate alternatives, 

appropriate to the stage of project development, which can be implemented. The user/ 

owner selects the alternative(s) that best satisfies their needs and requirements. Apply 

this practice to an entire project or to any subsystem. The user/owner can utilize the 

value analysis procedure to select the element or scope of the project to be studied. 

Perform value analysis during the planning, design, and construction phases of a project. 

The most effective application of value analysis is early in the design phase of a project. 

Changes or redirection in the design can be accommodated without extensive redesign at 

this point, thereby saving the user/owner time and money. 

Table 2.2 Building Economics Standard Practices for Measuring the Value of 

Construction-Related Systems and Attributes

Standard Title

E 1699

Standard Practice for Performing Value Analysis (VA) of Buildings and

Building Systems and Other Constructed Projects

E 1765

Standard Practice for Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to

Multiattribute Decision Analysis of Investments Related to Buildings

and Building Systems

E 2013

Standard Practice for Constructing FAST Diagrams and Performing

Function Analysis During Value Analysis Study

E 1765: Standard Practice for Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to 

Multiattribute Decision Analysis of Investments Related to Buildings and Building 

Systems 

ASTM Standard Practice E 176539 presents a procedure for calculating and interpreting 

analytical hierarchy process (AHP) scores of a project’s total overall desirability when 

making building-related capital investment decisions. The AHP is one of a set of 

multiattribute decision analysis methods that considers nonmonetary attributes 

(qualitative and quantitative) in addition to common economic evaluation measures (such 

as life-cycle costing) when evaluating project alternatives. Building-related decisions 

depend in part on how competing options perform with respect to nonmonetary attributes. 

E 1765 complements existing ASTM standards on building economics by incorporating 

the existing economic/monetary measures of worth described in those standards into a 

 

39 ASTM International. “Practice for Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to Multiattribute 

Decision Analysis of Investments Related to Buildings and Building Systems,” E 1765, Annual Book of 

ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 
15 

more comprehensive standard method of evaluation that includes nonmonetary 

(qualitative and quantitative) benefits and costs. The AHP has three significant strengths: 

(1) an efficient attribute weighting process of pairwise comparisons; (2) hierarchical 

descriptions of attributes, which keep the number of pairwise comparisons manageable; 

and (3) available software to facilitate its use. E 1765 presents a stand-alone procedure 

for performing an AHP analysis. In addition, an ASTM software product for performing 

AHP analyses has been developed to support and facilitate the use of this practice.40

E 2013: Standard Practice for Constructing FAST Diagrams and Performing 

Function Analysis During Value Analysis Study 

The function analysis systems technique (FAST) helps the user identify the alternatives 

that are highly valued with respect to their cost. ASTM Standard Practice E 201341

establishes a communication format through which all owners/users/stakeholders can 

understand, analyze, revise, and agree on the purposes of the project. E 2013 presents a 

method by which owners’/users’/stakeholders’ needs and desires are compared to the cost 

of satisfying those needs and desires. This is done by identifying low performance/high 

cost functions and high performance/low cost functions. These data will be used in the 

value analysis study as a basis to create alternative solutions. This practice helps 

developers, owners, users, stakeholders, planners, contractors, architects, engineers, value 

analysts, cost professionals, and anyone who is responsible for the budget, construction, 

maintenance, or operation of the project. Function analysis is performed after the 

collection of relevant information and prior to the identification of alternatives. 

2.3 Risk Management 

Table 2.3 lists two standard guides, two standard practices, and one standard 

classification for measuring and managing risk. Brief descriptions of each standard are 

given in the text which follows. 

E 1369: Standard Guide for Selecting Techniques for Treating Uncertainty and Risk in 

the Economic Evaluation of Buildings and Building Systems 

ASTM Standard Guide E 136942 covers techniques for treating uncertainty in input 

values to an economic analysis of a building investment project. The guide also 

recommends techniques for evaluating the risk that a project will have a less favorable 

economic outcome than what is desired or expected. The techniques covered in E 1369 

include breakeven analysis, sensitivity analysis, risk-adjusted discounting, the meanvariance criterion and coefficient of variation, decision analysis, and simulation. The 

 

40 ASTM International. 1998. User’s Guide to AHP/Expert Choice for Building Evaluation, MNL 29. West 

Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 

41 ASTM International. “Practice for Constructing FAST Diagrams and Performing Function Analysis 

During Value Analysis Study,” E 2013, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.11. West 

Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 

42 ASTM International. “Guide for Selecting Techniques for Treating Uncertainty and Risk in the 

Economic Evaluation of Buildings and Building Systems,” E 1369, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 

2010, Vol. 4.11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 
16 

techniques can be used with economic methods that measure economic performance, 

such as E 917, E 964, E 1057, E 1074, and E 1121. The guide describes circumstances 

when measuring uncertainty and risk may be helpful in economic evaluations of building 

investments. E 1369 defines uncertainty, risk exposure, and risk attitude. The guide 

presents nonprobabilistic and probabilistic techniques for measuring uncertainty and risk 

exposure. The guide describes briefly each technique, gives the formula for calculating a 

measure where appropriate, illustrates the technique with a case example, and 

summarizes the advantages and disadvantages. 

Table 2.3 Building Economics Standards for Measuring and Managing Risk 

Standard Title

E 1369

Standard Guide for Selecting Techniques for Treating

Uncertainty and Risk in the Economic Evaluation of Buildings

and Building Systems

E 1946

Standard Practice for Measuring Cost Risk of Buildings and

Building Systems

E 2168

Standard Classification for Allowance, Contingency, and

Reserve Sums in Building Construction Estimating

E 2506

Standard Guide for Developing a Cost‐Effective Risk

Mitigation Plan for New and Existing Constructed Facilities

E 2691 Standard Practice for Job Productivity Measurement

E 1946: Standard Practice for Measuring Cost Risk of Buildings and Building Systems 

ASTM Standard Practice E 194643 covers a procedure for measuring cost risk for 

buildings and building systems. The practice uses the Monte Carlo simulation technique 

as described in E 1369. Building cost risk analysis provides a tool for building owners, 

architects, engineers, and contractors to measure and evaluate the cost risk exposures of 

their building construction projects. Building cost risk analysis can be applied to a 

building project’s contract cost, construction cost (contract cost plus construction change 

orders), and project cost (construction cost plus owner’s cost), depending on the users’ 

perspectives and needs. E 1946 refers to contract cost, construction cost, and project cost 

as building cost. A building cost estimate consists of many variables. Even though each 

variable contributes to the total building cost risk, not every variable makes a significant 

enough contribution to warrant inclusion in the cost risk model. E 1946 identifies the 

 

43 ASTM International. “Practice for Measuring Cost Risk of Buildings and Building Systems,” E 1946, 

Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 
17 

critical elements in order to simplify the cost risk model. The practice shows how to: (1) 

quantify risks in critical elements; (2) create a cost risk model; (3) conduct a Monte Carlo 

simulation once the risks in the critical elements are quantified and the cost risk model is 

set up; (4) interpret the results of the simulation; and (5) conduct a sensitivity analysis to 

determine the relative contribution of each critical element to the total building cost risk. 

E 2168: Standard Classification for Allowance, Contingency, and Reserve Sums in 

Building Construction Estimating 

In building construction estimating the terms allowance, contingency, and reserve are 

often used almost interchangeably and are assumed to be universally understood, yet they 

often mean different things to different people. Consequently, they can be ambiguous in 

meaning and intent. Applying these terms according to ASTM Standard Classification 

E 216844 adds a needed precision and rigor in their use as each term is held to be specific 

in its meaning, intent, and use. E 2168 establishes a classification for allowance, 

contingency, and reserve sums used in construction, project, and program estimating. 

This classification applies to all construction work. E 2168 is not based on permanent 

physical elements of construction, as defined and classified in UNIFORMAT II, E 1557. 

Rather, the classification items are cost components common to construction, project, and 

program estimates. When preparing construction, project, and program cost estimates, it 

is often necessary to make monetary provision for change and/or risk or other exigencies 

where information is incomplete. Such allowance, contingency, or reserve sums are 

employed by many persons engaged in the planning, delivery, and financing of 

construction work. These users include owners, developers, facilities programmers, cost 

planners, estimators, schedulers, architects and engineers, specification writers, operating 

and maintenance staff, manufacturers, educators, and financial managers. These sums 

are especially appropriate when performing the following activities: cost budgeting; 

planning, design, and construction cost estimating; and controlling cost during planning, 

design, and construction. In any of these activities a needed requirement, or component, 

of the planned construction can be known while the defined solution, design, or 

specification, for providing it may not be known. The usual, and appropriate, response in 

these situations is the inclusion of a monetary sum, within an estimate, to provide for this 

(these) requirement(s). E 2168 defines allowance, contingency, and reserve sums as 

items common to construction, project, and program estimates. The terms are 

sufficiently generic to be applied in all forms of construction work. Allowance is defined 

as a sum of money that is intended to be spent on the planned scope of work; it is used in 

the absence of precise knowledge, and estimated, to the best of one’s abilities, to ensure a 

full and complete estimate. Allowances cover events and activities that are normally 

internal and so are directly controllable within the project plan. Contingency is defined 

as a sum of money that is provided to cover the occurrence of unintended departures from 

the planned scope of work; they are used in the absence of precise knowledge, and 

estimated, to the best of one’s knowledge to ensure that a financial buffer is available 

within a budget. Contingencies assist in mitigating the effects of unplanned events and 

 

44 ASTM International. “Classification for Allowance, Contingency, and Reserve Sums in Building 

Construction Estimating,” E 2168, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.12. West Conshohocken, 

PA: ASTM International. 
18 

other risks that are external to, and are not directly controllable within, a project plan. A 

reserve sum is a sum of money, usually held by management (client), to be disbursed 

only when project requirements are changed. A reserve sum is used to provide insurance 

against a project or program failing to complete on budget or for the revision of a budget 

in the case of changed management or program direction and requirement. 

E 2506: Standard Guide for Developing a Cost-Effective Risk Mitigation Plan for New 

and Existing Constructed Facilities 

Protecting constructed facilities from extreme events—fires, floods, earthquakes, and 

other natural and man-made hazards—is a constant challenge for facility owners and 

managers. Choosing among alternative protection strategies is complicated by the fact 

that such strategies frequently have significant up-front investment costs, result in 

operations and maintenance costs that are spread over many years, and impact key 

stakeholders in different ways. A methodology is needed to insure that all relevant costs 

are captured and analyzed via well-defined metrics. To address this need, ASTM 

Standard Guide E 250645 presents a three-step protocol that establishes a methodology for 

dealing with extreme events. The three-step protocol has the following essential 

components: (1) risk assessment; (2) identification of potential mitigation strategies; and 

(3) economic evaluation. Risk assessment is used to identify the risks confronting a 

facility. It includes development of possible damage scenarios, probability assessments 

for these scenarios, and identification of the facility’s vulnerabilities and critical areas. 

Identification of mitigation strategies—engineering alternatives, management practices, 

and financial mechanisms—provides performance and cost data for the possible 

combinations of risk mitigation strategies. Combinations of risk mitigation strategies are 

used to create a candidate set of alternatives for in-depth economic evaluation. The third 

component, economic evaluation, enables facility owners and managers to evaluate each 

alternative combination of risk mitigation strategies and the sequence of cash flows 

associated with their implementation. 

Implementing the three-step protocol requires both guidance and data. Guidance is 

needed to help owners and managers to assess the risks facing their facility. Data about 

the frequency and consequences of natural and man-made hazards are needed when 

assessing the risks that a particular facility faces from these hazards. Estimates of the 

costs of protection are needed to insure that safeguarding personnel and physical assets 

and satisfying financial constraints are kept in balance. Finally, guidance on the use of 

economic evaluation methods is needed to insure that the correct method, or combination 

of methods, is used. Although there is a great deal of high-quality information available 

on risk assessment and risk management, natural and man-made hazards, and economic 

tools, until recently there was no central source of data and tools to which the owners and 

managers of constructed facilities and other key decision makers can turn for help in 

 

45 ASTM International. “Guide for Developing a Cost-Effective Risk Mitigation Plan for New and Existing 

Constructed Facilities,” E 2506, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010. Vol. 04.12. West Conshohocken, 

PA: ASTM International. 
19 

developing a cost-effective risk mitigation plan. NIST Special Publication 1082 serves as 

such a central source.46

E 2691: Standard Practice for Job Productivity Measurement 

ASTM Standard Practice E 269147 measures both a construction productivity differential 

on an ongoing and periodic basis and average productivity over the life of a construction 

project. Job productivity measurement (JPM) calculates the ratio of output per unit of 

input: how much work—construction put in place—was produced by how many labor 

hours. Additionally, JPM provides an early warning signal for construction performance. 

It measures ongoing productivity changes, trends and anomalies resulting from changes 

on a construction jobsite. Thus, JPM enables contractors, project managers, supervisors, 

and foremen to react and improve productivity as the construction project unfolds. By 

comparing labor hours used against construction put in place, JPM allows for a unified 

measurement of established building elements based on the UNIFORMAT II elemental 

classification, E 1557. JPM establishes a process for measuring construction job 

productivity by comparing labor usage to construction put in place. E 2691 measures 

labor productivity of the installation processes on a construction job. Construction put in 

place is measured with input from the labor performing the installation, using elements of 

statistical process control and industrial engineering. E 2691 takes into account the 

difficulty of installation at any given point on a job. JPM evaluates relative productivity 

changes using trend monitoring. JPM, as implemented in E 2691, is a five step process: 

(1) establish a baseline labor hour budget for the scope of the construction job being 

measured using a work breakdown structure and reference to the UNIFORMAT II 

elemental classification; (2) evaluate the baseline labor hour budget for appropriate level 

of detail; (3) establish the labor productivity reference point; (4) track JPM measurements 

as soon as any labor hours are expended on the job—even before installation commences, 

with activities such as planning, layout, and pre-assembly; and (5) report the JPM 

productivity differential and review the results for signals of special causes impacting job 

productivity. 

2.4 Economic Evaluation 

Investment decisions associated with alternative facility designs or systems are frequently 

project-related, where a project could be the construction of a new building, the 

renovation of an existing constructed facility (e.g., a bridge), or the modernization of an 

existing system (e.g., a heating, ventilation, air-conditioning system (HVAC) upgrade). 

For a given project, the decision maker has to choose among a number of competing 

alternatives, all of which satisfy the same functional requirements. If the project is to 

upgrade a building’s HVAC system, then each of the alternatives being considered will 

satisfy the functional requirements specified by the building’s owner/manager or some 

 

46 Thomas, Douglas S., and Chapman, Robert E. 2008. A Guide to Printed and Electronic Resources for 

Developing a Cost-Effective Risk Mitigation Plan for New and Existing Constructed Facilities, NIST 

Special Publication 1082. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. 47 ASTM International. “Practice for Job Productivity Measurement,” E 2691, Annual Book of ASTM 

Standards: 2010. Vol. 04.12. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 
20 

other designated decision maker. At a higher level of aggregation, construction-related 

investment decisions often involve collections of projects. 

Table 2.4 lists seven building economics standards for measuring economic performance 

and for reporting the results of an economic evaluation. The five standard practices are 

all focused on how to use that practice to measure economic performance and how to 

interpret the results of the economic evaluation based on the application of that practice. 

The two guides serve two distinct purposes—namely how to choose among the five 

practices and how to report the results of the economic evaluation. Brief descriptions of 

each standard are given in the text which follows. 

Table 2.4 Building Economics Standards for Measuring Economic Performance 

and Reporting the Results of an Economic Evaluation 

Standard Title

E 917

Standard Practice for Measuring Life‐Cycle Costs of Buildings and

Building Systems

E 964

Standard Practice for Measuring Benefit‐to‐Cost and Savings‐to‐

Investment Ratios for Buildings and Building Systems

E 1057

Standard Practice for Measuring Internal Rate of Return and Adjusted

Internal Rate of Return for Investments in Buildings and Building

Systems

E 1074

Standard Practice for Measuring Net Benefits and Net Savings for

Investments in Buildings and Building Systems

E 1121

Standard Practice for Measuring Payback for Investments in Buildings

and Building Systems

E 1185

Standard Guide for Selecting Economic Methods for Evaluating

Investments in Buildings and Building Systems

E 2204

Standard Guide for Summarizing the Economic Impacts of Building‐

Related Projects

E 917: Standard Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildings and Building 

Systems 

ASTM Standard Practice E 917,48 the life-cycle cost (LCC) method, measures, in 

present-value or annual-value terms, the sum of all relevant costs associated with owning 

 

48 ASTM International. “Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildings and Building Systems,” 

E 917, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010. Vol. 04.11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 
21 

and operating a constructed facility over a specified period of time. The LCC method is 

reliable, straightforward, and widely applicable for finding the economically efficient 

choice among investment alternatives. The basic premise of the LCC method is that all 

costs arising from an investment decision are potentially important to that decision 

maker, including future as well as present costs. Applied to constructed facilities, the 

LCC method encompasses all relevant costs over a designated study period, including the 

costs of designing, purchasing/leasing, constructing/installing, operating, maintaining, 

repairing, replacing, and disposing of a particular design or system. Should any pure 

benefits result (e.g., increased rental income due to improvements), include them in the 

calculation of LCC. The LCC method is particularly suitable for determining whether the 

higher initial cost of a constructed facility or system specification is economically 

justified by lower future costs (e.g., reduced energy expenditures) when compared to an 

alternative with a lower initial cost but higher future costs. If a design or system 

specification has both a lower initial cost and lower future costs relative to an alternative, 

an LCC analysis is not needed to show that the former is economically preferable. The 

alternative with the lowest initial investment cost (i.e., first cost) is designated as the base 

case. The LCC method compares alternative, mutually exclusive, designs or system 

specifications that satisfy a given functional requirement on the basis of their life-cycle 

costs to determine which is the least-cost means (i.e., minimizes life-cycle cost) of 

satisfying that requirement over a specified study period. With respect to the base case, 

an alternative is economically preferred if, and only if, it results in lower life-cycle costs. 

The alternative that results in the lowest life-cycle cost is designated as the most costeffective alternative. 

E 964: Standard Practice for Measuring Benefit-to-Cost and Savings-to-Investment 

Ratios for Buildings and Building Systems 

ASTM Standard Practice E 96449 covers the benefit-to-cost ratio (BCR) and the savingsto-investment ratio (SIR) methods. The BCR and SIR methods are reliable, 

straightforward, and widely applicable for finding the economically efficient choice 

among investment alternatives. These methods are numerical ratios whose value 

indicates the economic performance of a given alternative instead of investing in the 

foregone opportunity (e.g., some other alternative or the base case). The BCR equals 

benefits less non-investment costs divided by investment costs. The SIR equals savings 

divided by investment costs. The LCC method provides all of the necessary information 

to calculate both the BCR and the SIR. The BCR or the SIR for a given alternative is 

calculated vis-à-vis the base case. The numerator equals the difference in the present 

value of benefits (BCR) or cost savings (SIR) between the base case and the given 

alternative. The denominator equals the difference in the present value of investment 

costs for the given alternative and the base case. A ratio less than 1.0 indicates that the 

given alternative is an uneconomic investment relative to the base case; a ratio of 1.0 

indicates an investment whose benefits or savings just equal its costs; and a ratio greater 

 

49 ASTM International. “Practice for Measuring Benefit-to-Cost and Savings-to-Investment Ratios for 

Investments in Buildings and Building Systems,” E 964, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010. Vol. 

04.11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 
22 

than 1.0 indicates an economic project. Any alternative that results in a BCR or an SIR 

greater than 1.0 is designated as cost effective. 

E 1057: Standard Practice for Measuring Internal Rate of Return and Adjusted 

Internal Rate of Return for Investments in Buildings and Building Systems 

ASTM Standard Practice E 105750 covers the internal rate of return (IRR) and adjusted 

internal rate of return (AIRR) methods. The IRR and AIRR methods are reliable, 

straightforward, and widely applicable for finding the economically efficient choice 

among investment alternatives. The IRR is the compound rate of interest that, when 

applied as a discount rate to a project’s stream of dollar benefits and costs, will equate 

them. The AIRR is the average annual yield from a project over the study period, taking 

into account reinvestment of interim receipts. The reinvestment rate in the AIRR 

calculation is equal to the minimum acceptable rate of return (MARR), which is assumed 

to equal the discount rate. When the reinvestment rate is made explicit, all investment 

costs are easily expressible as a time equivalent initial outlay (i.e., a value at the 

beginning of the study period) and all non-investment cash flows as a time equivalent 

terminal amount. This allows a straightforward comparison of the amount of money that 

comes out of the investment (i.e., the terminal value) with the amount of money put into 

the investment (i.e., the time equivalent initial outlay). The AIRR is defined as the 

interest rate applied to the terminal value, which equates (i.e., discounts) it to the time 

equivalent value of the initial outlay of investment costs. It is important to note that all 

investment costs are discounted to a time equivalent initial outlay using the discount rate. 

With regard to the base case, if the AIRR is greater than the discount rate (also referred to 

as the hurdle rate), then investment in the given alternative is economic; if the AIRR 

equals the discount rate, the investment is as good as the base case; if AIRR is less than 

the discount rate, the investment is uneconomical. Any alternative that results in an IRR 

or an AIRR greater than the discount rate is designated as cost effective. 

E 1074: Standard Practice for Measuring Net Benefits and Net Savings for 

Investments in Buildings and Building Systems 

ASTM Standard Practice E 107451 covers the present value of net benefits (PVNB) and 

present value of net savings (PVNS) methods. The PVNB and PVNS methods are 

reliable, straightforward, and widely applicable for finding the economically efficient 

choice among investment alternatives. The PVNB method calculates the difference 

between discounted benefits and discounted costs from investing in a given alternative 

instead of investing in the foregone opportunity (e.g., some other alternative or the base 

case) as a measure of the cost-effectiveness of a project. The PVNS method measures the 

net savings from investing in a given alternative instead of investing in the foregone 

 

50 ASTM International. “Standard Practice for Measuring Internal Rate of Return and Adjusted Internal 

Rate of Return for Investments in Buildings and Building Systems,” E 1057, Annual Book of ASTM 

Standards: 2010. Vol. 04.11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 51 ASTM International. “Standard Practice for Measuring Net Benefits and Net Savings for Investments in 

Buildings and Building Systems,” E 1074, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010. Vol. 04.11. West 

Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 
23 

opportunity. The PVNS for a given alternative, vis-à-vis the base case, equals their 

difference in life-cycle costs. Any pure benefits that result (e.g., increased rental income 

due to improvements) are included in the calculation of PVNS, since they are included in 

the LCC calculation. With respect to the base case, if PVNB or PVNS is positive for a 

given alternative the investment is economic; if it is zero, the investment is as good as the 

base case; if it is negative, the investment is uneconomical. Any alternative that results in 

a PVNB or a PVNS greater than zero is designated as cost effective. 

E 1121: Standard Practice for Measuring Payback for Investments in Buildings and 

Building Systems 

Standard Practice E 112152 provides a recommended procedure for calculating and 

applying the payback method in evaluating building designs and building systems. The 

payback method accounts for all monetary values associated with an investment up to the 

time at which cumulative net benefits, discounted to present value, just pay off initial 

investment costs. The payback method is used to find if a project recovers its investment 

cost and other accrued costs within its service life or within a specified maximum 

acceptable payback period less than its service life. It is important to note that the 

decision to use the payback method should be made with care. A major limitation of the 

payback method is that it ignores benefits and costs over the remaining service life of the 

project beyond the payback year. Another limitation is that the payback computed on 

total project investment does not indicate the economically efficient design or size of a 

project. Therefore, to make economically efficient choices among competing projects 

and among alternative designs/sizes for a single project, payback as an evaluation method 

is appropriate only when used as a supplementary method with other economic 

evaluation methods. 

E 1185: Standard Guide for Selecting Economic Methods for Evaluating Investments 

in Buildings and Building Systems 

There are four basic types of investment decisions for which an economic analysis is 

appropriate: (1) deciding whether to accept or reject a given alternative/project; (2) 

identifying the most efficient alternative/project size/level, system, or design; (3) 

identifying the optimal combination of interdependent projects (i.e., the right mix of 

sizes/levels, systems, and designs for a group of interdependent projects); and (4) 

deciding how to prioritize or rank independent projects when the available budget cannot 

fund them all. Each type of investment decision is important. First and foremost, 

decision makers need to know whether or not a particular alternative/project or program 

should be undertaken in the first place. Second, how should a particular project/program 

be configured? The third type of decision builds on the second and introduces an 

important concept, interdependence. Consequently, for a given set of candidate projects 

and implied interdependencies, the problem becomes how to choose the best combination 

 

52 ASTM International. “Practice for Measuring Payback for Investments in Buildings and Building 

Systems,” E 1121, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010. Vol. 04.11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM 

International. 
24 

of projects. The fourth type of decision introduces a budget constraint. The aim is how 

to get the most impact for the given budget. 

Numerous methods are available for measuring the economic performance of investments 

in buildings and building systems. Use ASTM Standard Guide E 118553 to identify types 

of building design and system decisions that require economic evaluation and to match 

the technically appropriate economic methods with the decisions. Five economic 

evaluation methods are addressed in ASTM Standard Guide E 1185: (1) life-cycle costs, 

LCC, ASTM Standard Practice E 917; (2) benefit-to-cost ratio, BCR, and savings-toinvestment ratio, SIR, ASTM Standard Practice E 964; (3) internal rate of return, IRR, 

and adjusted internal rate of return, AIRR, ASTM Standard Practice E 1057; (4) present 

value net benefits, PVNB, and present value net savings, PVNS, ASTM Standard 

Practice E 1074; and (5) payback, ASTM Standard Practice E 1121. Table 2.5 provides a 

summary of when it is appropriate to use the first four evaluation methods—E 917, 

E 964, E 1057, E 1074—described earlier. The payback method, E 1121, is not included 

in Table 2.5, since it is not a viable “stand alone” economic evaluation method. Note that 

the LCC and the PVNB or PVNS methods are appropriate in three of the four cases. 

Only in the presence of a budget constraint is the use of LCC, PVNB, or PVNS 

inappropriate and even in that case it plays an important role in computing the aggregate 

measure of performance. 

Table 2.5 Summary of Appropriateness of Each Standardized Evaluation Method 

for Each Decision Type 

Decision Type LCC PVNB 

PVNS 

BCR 

SIR 

IRR 

AIRR 

Accept/Reject Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Design/Size Yes Yes No No 

Combination (Interdependent) Yes Yes No No 

Priority/Ranking (Independent) No No Yes Yes 

More than one method can be technically appropriate for many design and system 

decisions. If more than one method is technically appropriate, use all that apply, since 

many decision makers need information on measures of magnitude (life-cycle costs and 

present value net benefits or present value net savings) and of return (benefit-to-cost ratio 

or savings-to-investment ratio and internal rate of return or adjusted internal rate of 

return) to assess economic performance. 

 

53 ASTM International. “Guide for Selecting Economic Methods for Evaluating Investments in Buildings 

and Building Systems,” E 1185, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010. Vol. 04.11. West Conshohocken, 

PA: ASTM International. 
25 

In summary, no single evaluation method works for every decision type. First and 

foremost, managers want to know if a particular project is economic. Reference to Table 

2.5 shows that all of the evaluation methods address this type of decision. Second, as 

issues of design, sizing, and packaging combinations of projects become the focus of 

attention—as often occurs in conjunction with budget reviews—the LCC and PVNB or 

PVNS methods emerge as the principle means for evaluating a project’s or program’s 

merits.54 Finally, the tightening budget picture involves setting priorities. Consequently, 

decision makers need both measures of magnitude, provided by LCC and PVNB or 

PVNS, and of return, provided by either the BCR or SIR and the IRR or AIRR, to assess 

economic performance. Multiple measures, when used appropriately, ensure consistency 

in both setting priorities and selecting projects for funding. 

E2204: Standard Guide for Summarizing the Economic Impacts of Building-Related 

Projects 

The presentation and analysis of the results of an economic analysis are central to 

understanding and accepting its findings. If the presentation is clear and concise, and if 

the analysis strategy is logical, complete, and carefully spelled out, then the results will 

stand up under close scrutiny. ASTM Standard Guide E 220455 meets the two previously 

cited conditions; it provides a summary format that consists of three sections: (1) the 

significance of the study effort; (2) the analysis strategy; and (3) the calculation of key 

benefit and cost measures.16F The significance of the study effort section describes: (1) why 

the study is important and how the organization conducting it became involved; and (2) 

why some or all of the changes brought about were due to the study organization’s 

contribution. The analysis strategy section focuses on documenting the steps taken to 

ensure that the analysis strategy is logical and complete. Particular emphasis is placed on 

summarizing the key assumptions, including any constraints that limited the scope of the 

analysis. Responses are provided for key assumptions concerning: (a) the base year for 

the analysis; (b) the length of the study period; and (c) the discount rate or minimum 

acceptable rate of return (MARR) used. Special emphasis is placed on documenting the 

sources and validity of any data used to make estimates or projections of key benefit and 

cost measures. The analysis strategy section establishes an audit trail from the raw data, 

through data manipulations (e.g., represented by equations and formulae), to the results. 

The third and final section focuses on reporting the calculated values of the key benefit 

and cost measures, as well as any additional measures that are deemed appropriate, and 

establishing traceability to standardized practices or, where appropriate, to statutory 

documents or procedures. It consists of three subsections, designated as 3.a, 3.b, and 3.c. 

Subsection 3.a includes descriptive information as well as calculated values. Subsection 

3.b reports calculated values for key measures of economic performance. Subsection 3.c 

is included to ensure traceability to appropriate national standards, codes, or regulations. 

 

 

54 If incremental values of the BCR or SIR and IRR or AIRR are computed, they can be used to make 

design/size and packaging decisions. 

55 ASTM International. “Guide for Summarizing Economic Impacts of Building-Related Projects,” E 2204, 

Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 04.12. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 
26 

Discount Factor Tables 

The Discount Factor Tables serves as an Adjunct to ASTM Standard Practices E 917, 

E 964, E 1057, E 1074, and E 1121.56 Three sets of discount factor tables are presented 

in the Adjunct. The first includes single-payment and uniform-series discount factors. 

The second presents uniform present value factors for a series of payments increasing 

from period-to-period at a given rate, rather than remaining constant over the entire study 

period. The third presents single present value factors for determining the present value 

of a single payment occurring at a future point of time, to be used when that payment is 

specified in base-time prices but is expected to increase in value over time at a specified 

periodic rate. The factors for all three tables have been calculated to four significant 

digits. The tables cover discount rates from 1 % to 25 %, and time periods from 1 year to 

40 years. 

 

 

56 Available from ASTM International Headquarters by ordering Adjunct No. ADJE091703, or by 

contacting ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. 
27 

3 A Case Study of the Gateway Arch Bridge: How Innovative 

Design and Economics Come Together 

3.1 Summary of Key Characteristics and Innovative Design Features 

The Gateway Arch Bridge is a dual single-span, modified tied-arch carrying six lanes of 

Interstate 94 (I-94) traffic (three eastbound and three westbound) over Telegraph Road in 

Taylor, Michigan. Figure 3.1 provides an overhead view of the two bridge structures. 

This bridge was part of the reconstruction of I-94 for Super Bowl XL held in 2006. 

Figures 3.2 and 3.3 provide different perspectives of the bridge as seen from Telegraph 

Road (Figure 3.2) and from I-94 (Figure 3.3). 

Figure 3.1 Overhead View of the Gateway Arch Bridge 

Source: Alfred Benesch & Company 

Many modern bridges are either true arches or tied arches. The modified tied-arch bridge 

in Taylor, Michigan combined the two concepts for aesthetic and safety reasons. Tied 

arches, where the tie is exposed, might be hit by trucks and are not desirable for grade 

separation structures. True arches, where the thrust must be taken by the foundation 

elements, are exposed to risk when the soil conditions are poor. The Gateway Arch 

Bridge is a signature structure modified to look like a true arch with a tied foundation. 

The thrust blocks are connected below the roadway by a rectangular concrete tie beam. 

The arch ribs are geometrically unequal to keep the two bridges closer together. The 

stiffness of the ribs is varied to keep deflection constant. To allow for inspections 

without disturbing the heavy traffic on I-94, the ribs were sealed and pressurized. 

Pressure gauges were added to detect any leaks. 

 
28 

Figure 3.2 Gateway Arch Bridge as Seen from Telegraph Road

Source: Alfred Benesch & Company 

Figure 3.3 Gateway Arch Bridge as Seen from I-94 

Source: Alfred Benesch & Company

 
29 

The project team was challenged with two major criteria: cost and structural integrity. 

The team approached the design by analyzing its functions and its worth. The team value 

engineered the conventional design of elements using ASTM Standard Practice E 169957

and identified the function, cost, and performance of each element using ASTM Standard 

Practice E 2013.58 If the function need/performance is high and cost is low, it has value; 

see Figure 3.4. If the function need/performance is low and cost is high, it becomes a 

mismatch; see Figure 3.4. When mismatches of the conventional design were identified, 

the team developed innovative solutions to create value of the elements that has a higher 

need/performance at a comparable or lower cost. Through repeated use of ASTM 

Standard Practice E 2013, the project team was able to develop and implement six key 

design innovations that balanced safety and aesthetics with life-cycle cost considerations. 

Figure 3.4 Value/Mismatch Graph 

Source: Alfred Benesch & Company 

Unique Foundation System 

In true arches, the thrust is taken by the foundation supports, such as piles. A true arch is 

aesthetically pleasing. However, soil conditions at the job site were found to be very 

poor. This raised concerns about the long-term foundation stability due to soil creep. 

With a high cost of a true arch and low foundation performance, it proved to be a 

mismatch; see Figure 3.5. In tied arches, the thrust is taken internally by tie beams. 

There is no redundancy in case of a failure of the thrust resistance. A tied arch over a 

heavily traveled roadway is vulnerable to being hit. Its performance is low and it is a 

mismatch; see Figure 3.5. With the two conventional designs that have mismatches, the 

team developed the concept of a longitudinal tie under the roadway. The design included 

 

57 ASTM International. “Practice for Performing Value Analysis (VA) of Buildings and Building Systems 

and Other Constructed Projects,” E 1699, op cit. 58 ASTM International. “Practice for Constructing FAST Diagrams and Performing Function Analysis 

During Value Analysis Study,” E 2013, op cit.
30 

multiple redundancies. The cost of the foundation was dramatically reduced by reducing 

deep foundations required to resist arch thrust. The concerns of poor soil and protection 

of the tie were resolved. The solution had the highest value; see Figure 3.5. For this 

modified tied-arch, the longitudinal arch thrust is resisted by multiple foundation 

elements as shown in Figure 3.6: the longitudinal foundation ties, the transverse 

foundation ties, and battered piles. The concrete foundation ties, buried beneath 

Telegraph Road (see the photograph on the right-hand side of Figure 3.6), are sized so 

that the tensile strength of the concrete is sufficient to carry the arch thrust. However, 

should the concrete crack, there is adequate reinforcement in the tie. There are also 10 

cm (4 in) diameter open ducts cast in concrete ties. At present, these are capped but the 

tie can be post-tensioned if deemed necessary. 

Figure 3.5 Analysis of Arch Types 

Source: Alfred Benesch & Company 

Figure 3.6 Gateway Arch Bridge Foundation System 

Source: Alfred Benesch & Company 

Longitudinal Foundation Tie 

Transverse 

Foundation 

Tie 

Longitudinal 

Foundation 

Tie 
31 

Arch Rib Geometry

The basic principle of arch design is that the ribs will be subjected to pure compression. 

Ribs under pure compression are the most economical. However, they may not result in 

a pleasing geometry. When the geometry of the arch is altered to improve aesthetics, the 

ribs will be subjected to bending in addition to compression. The performance of the 

arch rib geometry is measured using two attributes: structural integrity and aesthetics. 

Based on these attributes, the design team analyzed three alternative arch rib geometries: 

(1) Original Arch Rib Geometry; (2) Optimized Arch Rib Geometry; and (3) Balanced 

Arch Rib Geometry. 

The Original Arch Rib Geometry is based on aesthetics. This design resulted in more 

bending than desired. Hence this design is considered low performance. In addition, its 

cost is higher, which results in a mismatch; see Figure 3.7. Finite element analysis was 

used to create the Optimized Arch Rib Geometry, which results in arch ribs that are in 

pure compression. Hence structural performance is high and cost is low. However, this 

design is not aesthetically pleasing. Thus, the Need/Performance metric is given an 

average rating. Even so, the Optimized Arch Rib Geometry results in a value to the 

project; see Figure 3.7. Further application of finite element analysis resulted in a 

Balanced Arch Rib Geometry that maintained a high level of structural performance at a 

somewhat higher cost than the Optimized Arch Rib Geometry. However, this design is 

aesthetically pleasing. Therefore, it is given a high Need/Performance rating, which 

results in a value to the project; see Figure 3.7. 

Figure 3.7 Analysis of Arch Rib Geometry

Source: Alfred Benesch & Company 

Each structure is a single-span inclined through arch. The interior and exterior arch ribs 

are inclined 25 degrees towards each other. The inclination is limited to 25 degrees to 

maintain the desirable vertical clearance. The ribs are braced together using five football 

shaped braces; see Figures 3.8 and 3.9. The bases of the exterior arch ribs are located at 

the Telegraph Road level, while the bases of the interior ribs are located at the I-94 level. 
32 

This caused the length of the exterior rib and the interior rib to be different. The length 

of the exterior and interior arch ribs are 90.2 m (296 ft) and 78.3 m (257 ft), respectively. 

The span length measured between the east and west abutments is 75.0 m (246 ft). 

Figure 3.8 Longitudinal View of the Arch Ribs 

Source: Alfred Benesch & Company 

Figure 3.9 Transverse View of the Arch Ribs Illustrates Unequal Lengths 

Source: Alfred Benesch & Company 

The unequal lengths of the arches posed a challenge to the design team. The arch rib 

deflection due to dead and live loads will be different. By carefully varying the stiffness 

of the rib while keeping the outside shape and dimensions the same, the desired 

appearance and structural integrity were achieved. The inner thrust block is at the road 

level of I-94; the outer thrust block is at the level of Telegraph Road. 
33 

Maintenance of Arch Ribs 

Due to the small size of the arch ribs, future inspection and maintenance of the inside 

portion of the box is virtually impossible. Future manual inspection and maintenance 

cost would be high since part of the roadway would have to be closed during inspection 

and maintenance; as noted in Figure 3.10, this would result in a mismatch. Therefore, the 

arch ribs, arch braces, and the boxed-sections of transverse beams are pressurized with 

dry air to prevent moist air from entering the boxed-sections to cause corrosion. The 

pressurization will reduce maintenance costs and simplify the inspection process. 

Pressurization is categorized as a value to the project; see Figure 3.10. 

To prevent any air leakage from the pressurized sections, the top flanges of the arch ribs 

and braces are welded to the webs using a full penetration weld. The bottom flanges are 

welded to the webs using a double side fillet weld. A trapezoidal shape-sealing 

diaphragm is located inside the arch box at each hanger location. The portion inside the 

sealing diaphragm is not pressurized, and an access opening in the web is provided to 

facilitate inspection of the unsealed portion of the arch. Access openings in the arch ribs 

are furnished where the air pressure can be checked; see Figure 3.11. At each arch rib 

field splice location, one pressure valve is attached to the sealing diaphragm. The arch 

rib segments are sealed and pressurized with air at 55.2 kilopascal (kpa) (8.0 pounds per 

square inch (psi)). If the pressure inside the sealed chamber drops by more than 10.3 kpa 

(1.5 psi) from the 55.2 kpa (8 psi) norm, then the reason for the air leak will be 

investigated. 

Figure 3.10 Maintenance of Arch Ribs 

Source: Alfred Benesch & Company 
34 

Figure 3.11 Access Opening to the Arch Rib 

Source: Alfred Benesch & Company 

Redundancy of Hanger Assembly 

Each arch has 14 hanger assemblies that transfer the loads from the deck to the arch ribs. 

The design of the hanger assembly posed a number of challenges. First, the hangers were 

changed from rods to strands to simplify on-site construction and future replacement 

activities. Because the hangers are a critical element in carrying the load, it was decided 

to increase the redundancy; see Figure 3.12. Thus, each hanger assembly has a pair of 

strands, each one capable of carrying the total load (see the photograph on the left-hand 

side of Figure 3.13). 

Figure 3.12 Redundancy of Hanger Assembly 

Source: Alfred Benesch & Company 
35 

Figure 3.13 Hanger Assembly and Neoprene Transition Boots 

Source: Alfred Benesch & Company 

Each hanger assembly consists of two 5.4 cm (2.125 in) diameter, ASTM A586 structural 

strands, spaced 38.1 cm (15 in) center to center. The wires of each strand are galvanized 

to protect against corrosion. Each strand is attached to the arch ribs using a 4.45 cm (1.75 

in) thick hanger support plate and ASTM A148 Grade 105/85 galvanized open type 

socket. Neoprene transition boots, secured to 25.4 cm (10 in) diameter standard pipe, 

welded to the transverse beams and to the strands using stainless steel clamps, are used to 

prevent moisture from entering inside the connections between the transverse beams and 

the strands and to enhance aesthetics (see the photograph on the right-hand side of Figure 

3.13). A hanger separator is installed between the two strands of each hanger assembly 

for the middle ten hangers. Hanger separators increase in-plane stiffness of the strands 

by constraining the relative motions between them and increasing the stiffness of the 

hanger against transverse winds. The bridge was designed to facilitate the replacement of 

individual strands. Each strand of the pair is capable of supporting the deck and the full 

live load while the other is replaced. 

Optimization of Floor System 

The floor system is very economical due to optimization of both the connection type and 

the number of stringer beams. The stringer beams were initially designed to be 

connected to the transverse girders via a moment-transfer connection. However, a 

moment-transfer connection is quite expensive and unnecessary for the vertical loads 

carried by the stringer beams. Changing these connections to simple shear connections 

provided significant cost savings with only a minor decrease in the capacity of the floor 

system. See Figure 3.14 for a view of the shear connected stringer beams next to the 

moment connected stiffening girders. In addition to the connection type, the number of 

stringer beams was analyzed for eight stringers versus four stringers. The performance of 

an additional four stringers did not significantly decrease the deflection of the floor 

system while the cost was doubled. The combination of a four stringer system with 

simple shear connections and two outer stiffening girders with moment-transfer 

connections performs well at a lower cost and is a good value; see Figure 3.15. 
36 

Figure 3.14 Analysis of Floor System and Transverse Girders

Source: Alfred Benesch & Company 

Figure 3.15 Optimization of Floor System 

Source: Alfred Benesch & Company 

 
37 

Transverse Girders 

The transverse girders are I-beams (plate girders) with a box end section for torsional 

stiffness and aesthetic reasons; see Figure 3.14. The I-beams are economical and easy to 

inspect. The end portions are boxed using two additional outer webs. The boxed 

sections of the girders improve aesthetics and increase the torsional resistance of the 

transverse girders in case one strand within the hanger assembly is lost or is being 

replaced. At the end, due to multiple strands, the transverse girders may be subjected to 

torsion during strand replacement. The performance of the plate girder at the end will be 

low, since it is weak when subjected to torsion. The transverse girder is designed as a 

plate girder section in the middle and converted to a box section at the ends. This 

maximized its needed performance in the middle and at the ends, accomplishing both 

objectives at a reasonable cost; see Figure 3.16. 

Figure 3.16 Configuration of Transverse Girders 

Source: Alfred Benesch & Company 

3.2 Cost Accounting Framework 

The costs of each element are organized around the UNIFORMAT II classification of 

bridge elements, a major revision to ASTM Standard Classification E 210359 as described 

in NIST Special Publication 1122.60 Because these costs have associated with them 

project management functions and risk management functions, two additional tables are 

needed to complete the cost accounting framework. Table 3.1 covers program 

management-related costs and Table 3.2 covers risk management-related costs. Each 

table is organized as a three-level hierarchy. 

 

59 ASTM International. “Classification of Bridge Elements—UNIFORMAT II,” E 2103-11, op cit. 60 Kasi, Muthiah, and Chapman, Robert E. 2011. Proposed UNIFORMAT II Classification of Bridge 

Elements. NIST Special Publication 1122. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and 

Technology. 
38 

Table 3.1 Classification Hierarchy for Program Management-Related Costs 

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Major Group Classification Group Classification Individual Classificat

X Project Management X10 Field Requirements X1005 Bonds, Permits, Fees, and Insuran

X1010 Field/Site Set-Up and AccommodaX1015 Management, Supervision, and FieX1020 Personnel Travel and LodgingX1025 Safety and ProtectionX1030 Construction Aids, Equipment, and X1035 Temporary ConstructionX1040 Climatic and Environmental RequiX1045 Quality Control, Inspection, and TeX1050 Maintenance and HousekeepingX1090 Other Contractural Requirements

X20 Office Overhead and Profit X2010 Home Office Overhead

X2020 Profit

Table 3.2 Classification Hierarchy for Risk Management-Related Costs 

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Major Group Classification Group Classification Individual Classificat

Y Risk Management Y10 Allowance Y1010 Specific

Y1020 Nonspecific

Y20 Contingency Y2010 Specific

Y2020 Nonspecific

Y30 Reserve Sums Y3010 Specific

Y3020 Nonspecific
39 

The prefix in Table 3.1 is X indicating its relationship to Table 1 in ASTM E 2083, 

Standard Classification for Building Construction Field Requirements and Office 

Overhead and Profit.61 Level 1 in the hierarchy contains the single entry X Project 

Management. Level 2 in the hierarchy contains two entries: X10 Field Requirements and 

X20 Office Overhead and Profit. Level 3 entries under X10 Field Requirements include 

such cost items as X1030 Construction Aids, Equipment, and Tools (e.g., cranes and 

scaffolding) and X1035 Temporary Construction (e.g., coffer dams). 

The prefix in Table 3.2 is Y indicating its relationship to ASTM E 2168, Standard 

Classification for Allowance, Contingency, and Reserve Sums in Building Construction 

Estimating.62 Due to the unique characteristics of the Gateway Arch Bridge, ASTM 

E 2168 was of particular importance. Level 1 in the hierarchy contains the single entry Y 

Risk Management. Level 2 in the hierarchy contains three entries: Y10 Allowance, Y20 

Contingency, and Y30 Reserve Sums. The two Level 3 entries under Y10 Allowance 

are: Y1010 Specific and Y1020 Nonspecific. There are similar breakdowns for Y20 

Contingency and Y30 Reserve Sums. For example, under Y20 Contingency, Y2010 

Specific covers planning contingency, design contingency, and construction contingency, 

whereas Y2020 Nonspecific covers overall unexpected events or items. 

3.3 Cost Analysis of the Gateway Arch Bridge Using the UNIFORMAT II 

Elemental Classification and Example Sub Classification 

The total contract award cost for one of the two bridge structures making up the Gateway 

Arch Bridge is $6.67 million. Since the two bridge structures are identical, their total 

cost is $13.34 million. The cost analysis of the Gateway Arch Bridge, using the 

UNIFORMAT II elemental classification (ASTM E 2103-11) and example sub 

classification described in NIST Special Publication 1122, is presented in Table 3.3 and 

summarized in Figure 3.17. Table 3.3 records information for each of the five levels in 

the UNIFORMAT II bridge classification and example sub classification.63 Table 3.3 

includes alphanumeric designations and element/sub element names, dollar values, 

percent of total cost associated with those dollar values, and unit costs. Figure 3.17 

records the cost distribution of selected Group Elements and Individual Elements. The 

costs summarized in Figure 3.17 are the major Substructure and Superstructure Group 

Elements and Individual Elements; they account for approximately 85 % of the Gateway 

Arch Bridge’s total cost. 

 

61 ASTM International. “Classification for Building Construction Field Requirements, and Office Overhead 

& Profit,” E 2083, op cit. 62 ASTM International. “Classification for Allowance, Contingency, and Reserve Sums in Building 

Construction Estimating,” E 2168, op cit. 63 The current version, ASTM E 2103-11, includes only the first three levels: Level 1, Major Group 

Elements; Level 2, Group Elements; and Level 3, Individual Elements. 
40 

Table 3.3 Cost Analysis of the Gateway Arch Bridge Using the UNIFORMAT II Elemental Classification and Ex

Level 5

A30102010 Test Piles 

$1,369,210 20.5% $823,485 12.3% A30102020 Piles 

Cost/ Sq.Ft $74.51 Cost/ Sq.Ft $44.82 A10102030 Pile Cap 

A30201010 Reinforcement 

A30201020 Placement 

A30301010 Reinforcement 

A30301010 Placement 

A40101010 Reinforcement 

$545,725 8.2% A40101020 Placement 

Cost/ Sq.Ft $29.70 A401020 Foundations 3.17% $211,800 A40102020 Piles 

B10103010 Fabrication 

$4,493,274 67.3% $1,772,355 26.6%

Cost/ Sq.Ft $244.53 Cost/ Sq.Ft $96.45

B10202010 Fabrication B10202020 Erection 

B10301010 Fabrication B10301020 Erection 

B1040 Bearings 0.90% $60,000 B104020 Sliding 0.90% $60,000 

B20103010 Fabrication 

$2,063,325 30.9% B20103020 Erection 

Cost/ Sq.Ft $112.29 B2030 Hangers 5.25% $350,450 

B20501010 Reinforcement B20501020 Placement 

B30101010 Reinforcement 

$657,594 9.9% B30101020 Placement 

Cost/ Sq.Ft $35.79 B3020 Wearing Surface 2.72% $181,500 

$186,440 2.8% $4,000 0.1%

Cost/ Sq.Ft $10.15 Cost/ Sq.Ft $0.22

C2010 Barriers 0.49% $33,000 

$57,440 0.9%

Cost/ Sq.Ft $3.13

$125,000 1.9%

Cost/ Sq.Ft $6.80

D1010 Clearing and Grubbing 0.97% $65,000 

$624,998 9.4% $572,938 8.6% D1020 Demolition and Relocation 7.25% $483,615 

Cost/ Sq.Ft $34.01 Cost/ Sq.Ft $31.18 D1030 Earthwork 0.36% $24,323 D103010 Cut 0.36% $24,323 

D20 Approach Construction D2010 Approach Slabs 0.72% $48,060 

$52,060 0.8%

Cost/ Sq.Ft $2.83

Total Bridge Cost $6,673,921

245 Ft

75 Ft

18375 Sq.Ft $363.21

4.03% $268,8758.12% $541,6500.19% $12,960

22.36% $1,492,311

8.18% $545,725

22.36%

A301020 Piles 4.03% $268,875

7.13% $476,094

A302010 Cast ‐in‐Place

Concrete 8.12% $541,650

B10103020 Erection

1.87% $125,000 

0.37% $24,440 

Bridge Geometry

Sub Elements 

Level 4

Cost

% Total

Cost

Level 3

% Total

Cost Cost

D Sitework D10 Site Preparation

D2020 Sleeper Slabs

C30 Other Protection

C3010 Lighting

0.06% $4,000 

C Protection C10 Structure ProtectionB Superstructure B10 Short span assemblies

A3020 Stems

A40Other Supports

A4010 Thrust Blocks A401010 Cap 5.00% $333,925

B1020 Diaphragms B102020 Steel 1.10% $73,500

B1030 Bracings B103010 Steel 2.20% $146,544

$1,492,311

1.10%

Level 1 Level 2

Major Group

Elements Group Elements Individual Elements Sub Elements

B301010 Cast‐ in‐ PlaceConcrete 7.13% $476,094

$73,500

2.20% $146,544

B1010 Flexural Members B101030 Steel

A3030 Wing walls A303010 Cast ‐in‐ Place Concrete 0.19% $12,960

A Substruture A30 Abutments

A3010 Foundation

Deck Area of Bridge

B20 Long Span Assemblies B2010 Ribs B201030 Steel 21.91% $1,462,206

B2050 Ties B205010 Cast‐ in‐ Place

Concrete 3.76% $250,669

21.91% $1,462,206

3.76% $250,669

C20 Traffic protection

C2020 Protective Shields

Cost/ Sq.Ft

Length of Bridge (Back to Back of Abutments)Width of Bridge (Back to Back of Barriers)

B30 Deck

C1020 Expansion Joint 0.06% $4,000 

B3010 Structural Surface
41 

Figure 3.17 Cost Distribution of Selected Group Elements and Individual Elements for the Gateway Arch Bridge 
42 

Table 3.3 is organized so that the costs from each lower level in the hierarchy can be 

easily aggregated. The first four columns correspond to Levels 1, 2, and 3 of the E 2103-

11 classification and Level 4 of the example sub classification. The fifth column lists any 

Level 5 Sub Elements of the example sub classification, specifically the alphanumeric 

designation and name under the Level 5 heading. The last column records the quantities, 

units of measure, unit costs, and item cost under the Details heading. In several cases, the 

entries under the Details heading correspond to a Level 4 Sub Element or a Level 3 

Individual Element. Two intermediate columns summarize the cost characteristics of 

each Level 4 Sub Element. The two intermediate columns show the cost of the Level 4 

Sub Element, which is obtained by summing over all Level 5 Sub Elements associated 

with that Level 4 Sub Element, and the per cent of total cost associated with that cost. 

For example, the Level 4 Sub Element, A301020 Piles, has a cost of $269 000. Since the 

total cost of the bridge is $6.67 million, this value represents 4.03 % of the total cost. 

The cost of a Level 3 Individual Element is obtained by summing over all of its Level 4 

Sub Elements. In a similar fashion, the cost of a Level 2 Group Element is obtained by 

summing over all of its Level 3 Individual Elements and the cost of a Level 1 Major 

Group Element is obtained by summing over all of its Level 2 Group Elements. The cost 

for each Major Group Element and Group Element, along with its per cent of total cost 

and unit cost, are recorded in the first two columns of Table 3.3. Note that some Group 

Elements have a single Level 3 Individual Element. For example, Group Element A40, 

Other Supports, has a single Individual Element, A4010 Thrust Blocks. In such cases the 

values recorded under the Level 2 Group Element heading correspond to those associated 

with the Level 3 Individual Element. 

The values recorded in Table 3.3 provide the basis for Figure 3.17. Figure 3.17 presents 

a cost distribution of selected Group Elements and Individual Elements tied to a graphical 

representation of a longitudinal view of the Gateway Arch Bridge. The figure includes 

the alphanumeric string, the name of the Group Element or Individual Element, its cost, 

and its per cent of total cost. Two Group Elements and six Individual Elements are 

highlighted in Figure 3.17. Reference to Figure 3.17 reveals that the Level 2 Group 

Element A30 Abutments has a cost of $824 000, which corresponds to 12.3 % of the total 

cost. The other Level 2 Group Element shown in Figure 3.17, B30 Deck, has a cost of 

$658 000 or 9.9 % of total cost. Two Individual Elements, B1010 Flexural Members and 

B2010 Ribs, are of particular importance, since they each represent more than 20 % of 

the total cost of the bridge. Table 3.3 and Figure 3.17 illustrate how the UNIFORMAT II 

elemental classification and example sub classification can be used to focus attention on 

those elements that drive the overall costs of a bridge project, as well as those elements 

that are associated with special characteristics—in this case the unique foundation system 

and other design innovations—of a particular bridge. 

3.4 Risk Management 

The innovative design features associated with the Gateway Arch Bridge posed a number 

of risk management challenges. These challenges centered on both cost and schedule 

considerations. These challenges were addressed via the extensive use of: (1) ASTM 
43 

standards to achieve a balance between performance and life-cycle economy and (2) 

prefabricated components as cost and schedule control measures. To better understand 

the risk management measures employed in the Gateway Arch Bridge project, it is useful 

to expand upon the three risk management terms—allowance, contingency, and reserve 

sums—included in ASTM E 2168, by introducing a fourth term, base cost. Base cost 

includes all known and quantified costs for the project, including all trade costs and the 

prime contractor’s field requirements, office overhead and profit reported in Table 3.1. 

It is instructive to review the relationship between these four cost terms. Understanding 

this relationship is at the heart of analyzing and managing design and construction costs 

for complex projects such as the Gateway Arch Bridge. Base cost plus allowance is 

designated as the minimum cost. Base cost plus allowance and contingency is designated 

as the expected cost. As the project progresses, some of the planning and design 

contingencies will be moved into the base cost. Construction contingency will remain 

until the construction is complete. Base cost plus allowance, contingency, and reserve 

sums is designated as the maximum cost. 

The relationship between the four terms includes a time dimension. The time dimension 

allows us to analyze how costs change both through changes in design considerations as 

the process unfolds and more project-related information becomes available and through 

the application of ASTM standards. Thus far, we have discussed ways in which E 1699, 

E 2013, E 2083, E 2103, and E 2168 have been applied in developing, presenting, and 

conducting cost analyses. Two additional standards are critical in managing risk and 

tracking changes, they are: ASTM E 1369, Guide for Selecting Techniques for Treating 

Uncertainty and Risk in Economic Evaluation of Buildings and Building Systems;64 and 

ASTM E 1804, Practice for Performing and Reporting Cost Analysis During the Design 

Phase of a Project.65 ASTM E 1369 recommends techniques for treating uncertainty in 

input values to an economic analysis of a project. It also recommends techniques for 

evaluating the risk that elements of a project will have a less favorable outcome than 

what is desired or expected. ASTM E 1804 sets up the framework in which a project can 

be estimated properly and establishes a structured method to support decisions. ASTM 

E 1804 increases communication between the designer, the owner, and the cost estimator. 

Specifically, it includes information and reasons on how and why the project has changed 

from the previous cost estimate. 

The highly innovative design of the Gateway Arch Bridge raised concerns by the Federal 

and State of Michigan governments due to a significant number of unknowns and 

unfamiliar conditions. The designers conducted a number of function analysis studies 

using ASTM E 2013 and identified possible impact elements and functions. These 

included the concrete deck type, hanger type, foundation type, and the shape of the arch. 

ASTM E 1804 was used to track design changes and any cost changes associated with 

them. These changes are summarized in Table 3.4. 

 

64 ASTM International. “Guide for Selecting Techniques for Treating Uncertainty and Risk in Economic 

Evaluation of Buildings and Building Systems,” E 1369, op cit. 65 ASTM International. “Practice for Performing and Reporting Cost Analysis During the Design Phase of a 

Project,” E 1804, op cit. 
44 

Table 3.4 Changes in Cost by Phase Due to Design Changes Resulting from 

Application of ASTM E06.81 Standards 

Phase/Cost Item Cost

Program Phase

Base Cost $6,870,000

Nonspecific Contingency $1,200,000

Total $8,070,000

Schematic Phase

Increase Span Length $70,000

Excalation of Steel Price $120,000

Change from Tied Arch to Modified Arch $200,000

Provision for Post Tensioning $20,000

Total $7,280,000

Design Development Phase

Change from Post Tensioned to Conventional Deck $154,000

Change Rods to Strands $100,000

Add Second Set of Hangers $90,000

Revise Girder Shape from Box to Plate in the Middle ‐$250,000

Optimize Floor ‐$79,000

Overlay, Barriers, and Landscaping $125,000

Pressurize Ribs $180,000

Total $7,600,000

Construction Documents Phase

Optimize/Balance Arch Rib Geometry ‐$420,000

Total $7,180,000

In the program phase, the elements are not completely defined. For example, the clear 

distance between abutments would not be known until roadway geometry was completed. 

The base cost was estimated to be $6.87 million; the program phase cost estimate 

included a nonspecific contingency of $1.20 million. Thus, the total estimated cost for 

the program phase was $8.07 million. 

In the schematic phase, the elements are developed. As the elements were developed, the 

nonspecific contingency was replaced with specific allowances for each cost item. A risk 

analysis based on ASTM E 1369 showed the need to address the increasing steel price 
45 

trend at the time. To better manage this risk, the unit prices of structural steel members 

for the arch ribs and transverse beams were increased. Reference to Table 3.4 records an 

increase of $120 000. The length of the bridge was increased from 67 m (220 ft) to 75 m 

(246 ft) to meet the clear site distance required by the Michigan Department of 

Transportation (MDOT). The resulting cost increase was $70 000. To comply with the 

Federal Highway Administration’s and MDOT’s requirement on not having a tied arch 

on grade separation structures, which are vulnerable to damage, the tie was buried under 

the roadway. This increased cost by $200 000. The foundation tie was assumed to be 

post-tensioned concrete. To add redundancy, conventional reinforcing to resist the force 

was added. This increased cost by $20 000. The total estimated cost at the end of the 

schematic phase was $7.28 million.66

In the design development phase, the deck was changed from post-tensioned concrete to 

conventional concrete. The cost increase was $154 000. The hanger assembly went 

through some changes. First, the type was changed from rods to strands. The cost 

increase was $100 000. Because the hanger assembly is a critical member in carrying the 

load, it was decided to increase its redundancy. Thus, each hanger assembly has a pair of 

strands, each of which is capable of carrying the total load. This increased the cost by 

$90 000. It was also decided to pressurize the arch ribs to monitor the integrity of the 

ribs and prevent interior corrosion.67 The cost of detail changes and pressurizing was 

estimated to be $180 000. Additional cost for overlay, barriers, and landscaping added 

another $125 000. Two cost-saving measures were also put in place: (1) optimize floor 

framing; and (2) revise transverse girder shape. Analysis showed that there was a low 

performance difference between the 8 stringer and 4 stringer system (see Figure 3.15); 

this change saved $79 000. Changing the box girder section to a plate girder system in 

the middle of the transverse girder, reduced cost by $250 000 (see Figure 3.16). At the 

end of the design development phase, the total estimated cost was $7.60 million. 

Due to the uniqueness of this structure, using cost data from past projects did not 

guarantee effective cost management. Using ASTM E 1804 and ASTM E 2103, cost 

variation was tracked with proper documentation. By using function analysis (ASTM 

E 2013), cost was allocated more accurately to each element. 

In the construction documents phase, when all policy decisions were made and all details 

were known, the design team developed a detailed cost estimate compatible to design 

details and specifications. The team at this point optimized and balanced the arch rib 

geometry using finite element analysis (see Figure 3.7). Changing the arch rib geometry 

saved $420 000. The total estimated cost at the end of the construction documents phase 

was $7.18 million. 

 

66 The schematic cost estimate equals the base cost plus the four specific allowances. 67 The decision to pressurize the arch ribs was made to minimize future maintenance and repair costs, along 

with the associated costs of disrupting traffic during such maintenance and repair activities. While a formal 

life-cycle cost analysis was not performed during the value analysis study of this design feature, the 

concepts employed were fully consistent with the methodology outlined in ASTM E 917 (ASTM 

International. “Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildings and Building Systems,” E 917, op 

cit.). 
46 

Table 3.4 shows the details of validation during design. By using six ASTM standards, 

cost was managed better, contributing to a final engineering estimate of $7.18 million, 

which is $890 000 less than the program cost. 

The extensive use of prefabrication was of critical importance both for cost and schedule 

control.68 The complex bridge design and use of pressurization required exacting 

tolerances. To speed on-site erection, complex structural shapes were pre-assembled at 

the fabricator’s site. Figure 3.18 shows an example of a full lay-down assembly of the 

arch ribs at the fabricator’s site. Coupling the complex structural shapes in a manner that 

would facilitate pressurization of the arch ribs, required tight quality control measures. 

One example of these measures is shown in Figure 3.19, where a splice connection is 

being drilled at the lay-down yard at the fabricator’s site. 

Figure 3.18 Benefits of Prefabrication: Full Lay-Down Assembly 

Source: Alfred Benesch & Company 

 

 

68 Readers interested in an in-depth discussion of the pros and cons of prefabrication are referred to a recent 

McGraw-Hill Construction SmartMarket Report (McGraw-Hill Construction. 2011. Prefabrication and 

Modularization: Increasing Productivity in the Construction Industry. SmartMarket Report. Bedford, MA: 

McGraw-Hill Construction.). 
47 

Figure 3.19 Benefits of Prefabrication: Drilling Splice Connection 

Source: Alfred Benesch & Company 

It is important to note that prefabrication helped to control costs both in the preconstruction and construction phases, whereas its impact on schedule was primarily in the 

construction phase. Critical prefabrication-related cost saving measures in the preconstruction phase were $250 000 associated with the innovative transverse girder design 

in the design development phase and $420 000 associated with optimizing and balancing 

the arch rib geometry in the construction documents phase. Both of these cost saving 

measures are highlighted in Table 3.4. 

Thus far, the emphasis has been on risk management in the pre-construction phase. Risk 

management during the construction phase is also critical to successful project execution. 

Comparisons between Table 3.3, which records the total contract award cost of the 

Gateway Arch Bridge, and Table 3.4, which records the expected costs as designed, show 

a net cost reduction of approximately $500 000. The vast majority of these cost 

reductions were achieved in the construction phase through use of ASTM Standard Guide 

E 2506.69 Specifically, the contractor employed an innovative procedure for pouring and 

curing the concrete bridge deck that allowed them to use the hanger assemblies to carry 

the load rather than supporting the transfer girders with shoring. 

To better understand this approach, it is useful to examine both the types of risks and 

mitigation strategies covered by ASTM Standard Guide E 2506 and how stakeholder 

perspectives affect risk exposure. ASTM Standard Guide E 2506, also referred to as the 

 

69 ASTM International. “Guide for Developing a Cost-Effective Risk Mitigation Plan for New and Existing 

Constructed Facilities,” E 2506, op cit. 
48 

three-step protocol, involves three types of risk: engineering, financial, and management. 

These risks are quantified and to a certain extent mitigated and/or managed via the threestep protocol: (1) risk assessment; (2) identification of potential mitigation strategies; and 

(3) economic evaluation. Stakeholder perspective is important because the Designer/ 

Owner perspective favors the “traditional” method of casting concrete that employs 

shoring while the Contractor’s innovative method produces a competitive advantage that 

increases the likelihood of them getting the contract award. 

Casting of concrete can be done in two ways: (1) support the transfer girders with shoring 

and adjust the slab formwork for profile and deflections; and (2) cast the concrete deck 

with the hanger assemblies carrying the load. The design intent was to shore the deck 

during the concrete pour. After concrete is set, the hangers will be stressed to lift the 

slab. The contractor chose to support the deck formwork with the transfer girders and the 

adjustable hanger assemblies. Controlling elevation with method 2 is much more 

difficult than with shoring as it involves adjusting the tension on the hanger assemblies as 

the concrete cures. Figure 3.20 provides a comparison of the two alternative methods for 

pouring and curing the concrete bridge deck. Method 1, where the formwork is 

supported by shoring, is shown on the left. Method 2, where the formwork is supported 

by the hangers, is shown on the right. 

Table 3.5 summarizes the risks from the designer’s/owner’s perspective. For method 1, 

engineering risk is low since the final deck elevation can be controlled easily. Financial 

risk is medium since the shoring will cost more and it will also limit traffic capacity. 

Management risk is low since it is a traditional method of casting concrete. The bid 

document specified method 1 for casting the concrete bridge deck. For method 2, 

engineering risk is very high since it is not the typical method of casting concrete. 

Method 2 requires careful design and supervision during concrete placement and curing. 

The designer needs to avoid unpredictable financial and engineering risks. Method 1 is a 

typical and safer method. Deviating from the traditional approach (i.e., method 1) forces 

the designer to depend on field operations where they do not have much control. 

Table 3.5 Risk Comparisons from the Designer’s/Owner’s Perspective

Designer and Owner Perspective

Method Engineering Risk Financial Risk Management Risk

1 Low

Medium

Potentially higher cost

along with traffic

delays

Low

2

High

Since they don’t know the

capability of the contractor and

they don’t have the control of

field operations

High

Contractors tend to

bid high on risky

operations

High

If something goes

wrong in the field, any

non typical method

gets questioned.
49 

Figure 3.20 Comparison of the Two Methods for Pouring and Curing the Concrete Bridge Deck 
50 

Table 3.6 summarizes the risks from the contractor’s perspective. For the first method, 

engineering risk is low since the final deck elevation can be controlled easily. Financial 

risk is medium for the contractor since the shoring will cost more and it will also limit 

traffic capacity. Management risk is high since it reduces the likelihood of the contactor 

getting the contract award if they bid that method of casting the concrete deck. For the 

second method, engineering risk is very high since it is not the typical method of casting 

concrete; it requires careful design and supervision during concreting. Financial risk is 

low since it costs less. Management risk is high since the owner may require that the 

method specified in the bid document (i.e., method 1) be used. 

Faced with these challenges, the contractor had to develop mitigation strategies that 

would reduce both engineering risk and management risk. The contractor took the 

management risk by assuming that they can convince the owner and designer that they 

can successfully deliver an acceptable deck by using method 2. This strategy reduced the 

management risk from high to low (see Table 3.6). The contractor avoided the 

management risk by controlling the engineering risk and benefited financially. 

Table 3.6 Risk Comparisons from the Contractor’s Perspective 

Contractor Perspective

Method Engineering Risk Financial

Risk Management Risk

1 Low Medium

High

If they bid the project based on

method 1, their bid will be higher.

Someone may bid the job lower by

choosing method 2.

2

High

The contractor has the control

of field operations to avoid

the undesired outcome. They

reduced the risk to  

Low

Low

High

They convinced the client and the

designer that they can deliver a

quality deck. They reduced the risk to

Low

The Gateway Arch Bridge won six awards, including two national awards. The two 

national awards were the 2006 Outstanding Project Award from the National Council of 

Structural Engineers Association and the 2007 Prize Bridge—Medium Span Award from 

the National Steel Bridge Alliance. In addition to the two national awards, the Gateway 

Arch Bridge won the 2006 Best Medium Structure Award from the Structural Engineers 

Association of Illinois; the 2006 Engineering Honorable Conceptor Award from the 

Michigan Chapter of the American Council of Engineering Companies; the 2008 

Partnering Award from the Michigan Construction Quality Partnership; and the 2008 

Making a Difference Gold Award for Partnering from the National Partnership for 

Highway Quality. A major criterion for its selection as an award recipient was its cost 

effectiveness. 
51 

4 Summary and Recommendations for Further Research 

4.1 Summary 

This report provides an overview of the 26 standards developed within the ASTM 

Subcommittee on Building Economics, E06.81, along with a description of how these 

standards are being used to promote more cost-effective decisions for the design, 

construction, operation, and disposal of constructed facilities. The report includes 

descriptions of a terminology standard, seven standard classifications, five standard 

guides, and 13 standard practices. The standard classifications, standard guides, and 

standard practices are organized around four topic areas: (1) cost data presentation and 

analysis; (2) value analysis; (3) risk management; and (4) economic evaluation. The 

report contains a detailed case study illustrating how many of the subcommittee’s 

standards can be applied to a complex transportation project. The case illustration uses 

the design and construction of the Gateway Arch Bridge in Taylor, MI. The Gateway 

Arch Bridge was part of the reconstruction of Interstate 94 for Super Bowl XL held in 

2006. The case illustration discusses the bridge’s innovative design and engineering 

features, the extensive use of prefabricated components as cost and schedule control 

measures, and the use of ASTM standards to achieve a balance between performance and 

life-cycle economy. The Gateway Arch Bridge won six awards, including two national 

awards. A major criterion in its selection as an award recipient was its cost effectiveness. 

4.2 Recommendations for Further Research 

The background work for this report uncovered several additional areas of research that 

would be of value to government agencies, standards development organizations, 

designers and constructors of physical infrastructure projects, and other stakeholders 

concerned with the costs of designing and constructing new physical infrastructure and of 

maintaining and repairing existing physical infrastructure across the Nation. Specifically, 

four additional UNIFORMAT II classifications are proposed for development: (1) 

tunnels; (2) highways; (3) railroads; and (4) water treatment and distribution. Each of 

these proposed UNIFORMAT II classifications corresponds to a critical infrastructure 

need identified in the American Society of Civil Engineers Report Card for America’s 

Infrastructure.

70

 

 

70 ASCE 2009 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, op cit. 
52 
53 

References 

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2009. ASCE 2009 Report Card for 

America’s Infrastructure. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers. 

ASTM International. 2012. ASTM Standards on Building Economics. 7th Edition. West 

Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 

ASTM International. “Classification for Allowance, Contingency, and Reserve Sums in 

Building Construction Estimating,” E 2168, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 

4.12. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 

ASTM International. “Classification for Bridge Elements and Related Approach Work,” 

E 2103, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.11. West Conshohocken, PA: 

ASTM International. 

ASTM International. 2011. “Classification for Bridge Elements—UNIFORMAT II,” 

E 2103-11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 

ASTM International. “Classification for Building Construction Field Requirements and 

Office Overhead and Profit,” E 2083, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.11. 

West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 

ASTM International. “Classification for Building Elements and Related Sitework—

UNIFORMAT II,” E 1557, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.11. West 

Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 

ASTM International. “Classification for Cost Estimate Classification System,” E 2516, 

Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.12. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM 

International. 

ASTM International. “Classification for Life-Cycle Environmental Work Elements—

Environmental Cost Element Structure,” E 2150, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, 

Vol. 4.12. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 

ASTM International. “Classification for Program and Project Estimate Summaries,” 

E 2620, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.12. West Conshohocken, PA: 

ASTM International. 

ASTM International. “Guide for Developing a Cost-Effective Risk Mitigation Plan for 

New and Existing Constructed Facilities,” E 2506, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 

2010. Vol. 04.12. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 
54 

ASTM International. “Guide for Selecting Economic Methods for Evaluating 

Investments in Buildings and Building Systems,” E 1185, Annual Book of ASTM 

Standards: 2010. Vol. 04.11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 

ASTM International. “Guide for Selecting Techniques for Treating Uncertainty and Risk 

in the Economic Evaluation of Buildings and Building Systems,” E 1369, Annual Book of 

ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 

ASTM International. “Guide for Summarizing Economic Impacts of Building-Related 

Projects,” E 2204, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 04.12. West 

Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 

ASTM International. “Guide for Utilizing the Environmental Cost Element Structure 

Presented by Classification E 2150,” E 2637, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, 

Vol. 4.12. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 

ASTM International. “Guidelines for Developing UNIFORMAT II Standard 

Classifications,” Working Paper. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 

ASTM International. “Practice for Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to 

Multiattribute Decision Analysis of Investments Related to Buildings and Building 

Systems,” E 1765, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.11. West 

Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 

ASTM International. “Practice for Constructing FAST Diagrams and Performing 

Function Analysis During Value Analysis Study,” E 2013, Annual Book of ASTM 

Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 

ASTM International. “Practice for Job Productivity Measurement,” E 2691, Annual Book 

of ASTM Standards: 2010. Vol. 04.12. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 

ASTM International. “Practice for Measuring Benefit-to-Cost and Savings-to-Investment 

Ratios for Buildings and Building Systems,” E 964, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 

2010, Vol. 4.11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 

ASTM International. “Practice for Measuring Cost Risk of Buildings and Building 

Systems,” E 1946, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.11. West 

Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 

ASTM International. “Practice for Measuring Internal Rate of Return and Adjusted 

Internal Rate of Return for Investments in Buildings and Building Systems,” E 1057, 

Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM 

International. 
55 

ASTM International. “Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildings and Building 

Systems,” E 917, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.11. West 

Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 

ASTM International. “Practice for Measuring Net Benefits and Net Savings for 

Investments in Buildings and Building Systems,” E 1074, Annual Book of ASTM 

Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 

ASTM International. “Practice for Measuring Payback for Investments in Buildings and 

Building Systems,” E 1121, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.11. West 

Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 

ASTM International. “Practice for Organizing and Managing Building Data,” E 2166, 

Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.12. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM 

International. 

ASTM International. “Practice for Performing and Reporting Cost Analysis During the 

Design Phase of a Project,” E 1804, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.11. 

West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 

ASTM International. “Practice for Performing Value Analysis (VA) of Buildings and 

Building Systems and Other Constructed Projects,” E 1699, Annual Book of ASTM 

Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 

ASTM International. “Practice for Presentation Format of Elemental Cost Estimates, 

Summaries, and Analyses,” E 2514, Annual Book of ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.12. 

West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 

ASTM International. “Terminology of Building Economics,” E 833, Annual Book of 

ASTM Standards: 2010, Vol. 4.11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 

ASTM International. 1998. User’s Guide to AHP/Expert Choice for Building Evaluation, 

MNL 29. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. 

Bowen, Brian, Charette, Robert P., and Marshall, Harold E. 1992. UNIFORMAT II: A 

Recommended Classification for Building Elements and Related Sitework, NIST Special 

Publication 841. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

Charette, Robert P., and Marshall, Harold E. 1999. UNIFORMAT II: Elemental 

Classification for Building Specifications, Cost Estimating, and Cost Analysis, NISTIR 

6389. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

Kasi, Muthiah, and Chapman, Robert E. 2011. Proposed UNIFORMAT II Classification 

of Bridge Elements, NIST Special Publication 1122. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute 

of Standards and Technology. 
56 

Lippiatt, Barbara C. 2007. BEES 4.0: Building for Environmental and Economic 

Sustainability Technical Manual and User Guide, NISTIR 7423. Gaithersburg, MD: 

National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

Marshall, Harold E. 1988. Techniques for Treating Uncertainty and Risk in the Economic 

Evaluation of Building Investments, NIST Special Publication 757. Gaithersburg, MD: 

National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

McGraw-Hill Construction. 2011. Prefabrication and Modularization: Increasing 

Productivity in the Construction Industry. SmartMarket Report. Bedford, MA: McGrawHill Construction. 

RS Means. 2010. Building Construction Cost Data: 68th Annual Edition. Kingston, MA: 

Reed Construction Data, Inc. 

Ruegg, Rosalie, T., and Petersen, Stephen R. 1987. Comprehensive Guide for Least-Cost 

Energy Decisions, NBS Special Publication 709. Gaithersburg, MD: National Bureau of 

Standards. 

Ruegg, Rosalie T., Petersen, Stephen R., and Marshall, Harold E. 1980. Recommended 

Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildings and Building Systems, NBSIR 80-

2040. Gaithersburg, MD: National Bureau of Standards. 

Thomas, Douglas S., and Chapman, Robert E. 2008. A Guide to Printed and Electronic 

Resources for Developing a Cost-Effective Risk Mitigation Plan for New and Existing 

Constructed Facilities, NIST Special Publication 1082. Gaithersburg, MD: National 

Institute of Standards and Technology. 

U.S. Department of Energy. 2002. Environmental Cost Element Structure. Washington, 

DC: Interagency Environmental Cost Engineering Committee. 

Whitestone Research. 2010. Facility Maintenance and Repair Cost Reference 2010-

2011: 15th Edition. Santa Barbara, CA: Whitestone Research.