A111DD TTOBflb

ill Wm.

NBSIR 80-2167

Weatherization Investment Costs for

Low-Income Housing

Stephen F. Weber

Michael J. Boehm

Barbara C. Lippiatt

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

U.S. Department of Commerce

Washington, DC 20234

Qi

,056

80-2167

1980

November 1980

Prepared for: Community Services Administration

Washington, DC 20506

PUBLICATIONS

...

:: f

National Bureau of Standards

Library* E-01 Admin. Bldg.

NBSIR 80-2167 ^EB 27

nu cue. -Ctc

WEATHERIZATION INVESTMENT COSTS FOR £ ;.Wo

LOW-INCOME HOUSING . Uib

r)b. %6 7

/480

Stephen F. Weber

Michael J. Boehm

Barbara C. Lippiatt

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

U.S. Department of Commerce

Washington, DC 20234

November 1980

Prepared for: Community Services Administration

Washington, DC 20506

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Productivity, Technology, and Innovation

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Ernest Ambler, Director
•• ’ ’ tc ••• r-1 - ; 'A Vi i .

r; f V j 31 . . • • . '
PREFACE

This project was conducted under the sponsorship of the Community Services

Administration (CSA) by the Applied Economics Group in the Center for Building

Technology (CBT) of the National Bureau of Standards (NBS).

In response to the burden that high and rapidly rising energy costs are imposing on low-income households, CSA and NBS are conducting a demonstration

program to weatherize the dwellings of such households to conserve energy.

This program involves the installation and analysis of a broad range of

weatherization options for over 200 single-family houses in 14 demonstration

sites throughout the United States. One important element of this program

is to collect and analyze the costs of these weatherization investments so that CSA, the Department of Energy, and other interested parties can have

accurate estimates of weatherization costs available and can better decide

whether the installed package of weatherization options is expected to pay

for itself. Consequently, this report presents an analysis of the field

data collected on the costs of installing in low-income houses architectural

weatherization features designed to reduce the building space heating load.

Special appreciation is extended to the local project coordinators of the

demonstration sites for taking the time to fill out the many cost data forms

required and for providing information needed to resolve ambiguities. Special

appreciation is also extended to Kimberly A. Barnes for developing the first

versions of the computer programs used for this report and for providing

advice on computer matters. Lawrence J. Kaetzel, Judith T. Calabrese, and

Charles B. Andrews also deserve thanks for providing technical assistance

with the operation of the CBT computer system. For assistance in tabulating

data and editing the manuscript the authors are grateful to Anne Hillstrom.

Special appreciation is also extended to Brenda L. Kefauver and

Mary L. Rams burg for typing the manuscript. For helpful comments throughout

the project, the authors would like to thank Robert E. Chapman,

Richard W. Crenshaw, and Stephen R. Petersen. In addition, the authors are grateful to the reviewers for providing comments to improve the report:

Kimberly A. Barnes, Robert W. Beau-v.lial, Richard W. Crenshaw, and

Harold E. Marshall.
ABSTRACT

This report presents the results of a project involving the collection and

tabulation of field data on the costs of retrofitting low-income houses for

energy conservation. This project is part of the Community Services Administration Weatherization Demonstration Program being carried out through the

National Bureau of Standards. The program involves the installation and

evaluation of a broad range of energy conservation techniques for over 200

single-family houses in 14 demonstration sites throughout the United States.

The energy conservation techniques discussed in this report consist of a variety of architectural modifications to building envelopes for the purpose

of reducing heat losses due either to air infiltration or conduction. The

methods used to collect and synthesize the field data on the major cost com- ponents of installing these techniques are described. An analysis of these

costs is presented in the form of summary statistics including the weighted

mean and standard deviation of the unit cost of installing each architectural

option in each demonstration site. The significant intercity variation

found in the mean unit cost of most techniques suggests that unique cost

estimating procedures may be needed for each city. Possible sources of

variation in the mean unit costs are discussed. Recommendations for further

research include investigating the effect on cost that can be attributed to

selected sources of variation.

Key Words: Building economics; cost components; data analysis; data

collection; demonstration; economic analysis; energy conservation; insulation; low-income housing; statistics; unit costs;

weatherization.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES vi

LIST OF FIGURES vii

CONVERSION FACTORS FROM CUSTOMARY TO METRIC (SI) UNITS viii

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Purpose 1 1.2 Scope 2 1.3 Usefulness of Cost Data 2

2.0 DATA COLLECTION METHOD 6

2.1 Data Collection Form 6

2.2 Monitoring the Data Collection 8

3.0 DATA REDUCTION AND SYNTHESIS 10

3.1 Non-Attic Options 10

3.2 Attic Insulation 15

3.3 Weatherization-Related Repair Work 17

4.0 DATA PRESENTATION 19

4.1 Infiltration Options 19

4.2 Conduction Options 39

4.2.1 Non-Attic Conduction Options 39

4.2.2 Attic Insulation 57

4.3 Weatherization-Related Repair Work 65

4.4 Summary and Discussion of Weatherization Cost Statistics ... 65

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 70

REFERENCES 73

v
LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1.1 Metropolitan Area, State, and Abbreviation for the

Demonstration Sites in this Report 3

Table 1.2 Number of Houses Reported by Architectural Option

and City 4

Table 4.1 Expenditures ($) for Weatherization-Related Repair

Work, by City and Type of Repair Work 66

Table 4.2 Weighted Mean Total Cost of Installed Architectural

Options, by City, in Dollars per Lineal Foot ( $ / If ) or Dollars per Square Foot ($/sf) 67

Table 4.3 Weighted Mean Total Cost of Installed Attic Insulation

Based on Actual R-value Added, by City, in Dollars per

"R" added per Square Fott ($/R»sf) and Dollars per

Square Foot ($/sf) 69

vi
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 2.1 Dwelling Unit Cost Data Form 7

Figure 2.2 Cost Data Tracking Chart 9

Figure 3.1 Composite Data Form 11

vii
CONVERSION

FACTORS

FROM

CUSTOMARY

TO

METRIC

(SI)

UNITS

oo• i 4 >4 r-H CN CM r-H /—\ *-H r-H PQ | 1 | 1 »—

CN | co | O O o o o co o O o

>4

H *-H ^H r-H 1 r-H *—

*—

X pH

ph

X

XX

XX 4-1XXX

M s—

H 00 o CN vO co v£>

m *—H rJ •d- CO co o II LO m X o CN 00 uo vD in o n- § • • • • • a • • • CO CN 4-1 m *-H rH

Li0)

4-1 CDE 3 O 3

•H Li HQ OO 4-1 3 3 4-1 O CO 3 33 3 3 3 3

J-l Li •H •H Li

a) Li CD CD 3 3 Li

4-1 (D

a rH rH 4-1 3 3 4-1 CD 3 3 a E CD g E C_> o E E cO co 3 3 L4 Li CD 3 3 3

(-1 Li ci 00 00 CD 3 3 Li *H

0) CO •H o O Li Li rH 3 CD

O 4-1 3 X rH rH 00 OO 3 3 rH H 0) c

3 •H •H CD 3 O cr 3 s 3 O H3 33 CO CO CJ

rv

4hd /~s 

3 X 4J 3

rH PC 3 '—

^~s V—

3

pH Ph Li 4J O o 4-1 oo O —

'—

•H 3 o 3 33 3

4-1 4-1 4-1 3 4-1 /-S /• N •H •H Li PQ S <4-1 4-1 ,—

Cl CD 3 rH 3 ro o rH 3 4-4 •H X X 3 O Li 3

OP

v—

V-/

aX 3 3 E X 3 4J pH 3 CD 3 c a pc

4-> 4J

O Li Li 3 4-1

H o O 4-1XX

X

O 4-i Ph

Cd o o o X Li 3 3 4-1

O HO

W 4-1 4-1 o rH CD pH pH 4H 3 • p> 4-1 a- X X X r-( CD CD 3 3 3 C • o CO Li o T3 TJ 3 3 •H Li 3 4h

CJ 3 CO •H 3 3 L< Li 4J 3 Li CO c 3 HQ 3 3 00 00 *H 3 X o •H cr 3 O O 3 3 Li CT 3 H rH 3 Cl a a 33 33 PC 3 Ph 3O33

Li 3 3 Cl 4H 3

4h 3

•H 4-1 33 3

•H 3 3 3

Li Li 3 3 3 Pi >* 4-1 4-1 H tn 3 3 rH M X CD 4-1 Li Li 3

4-1 E •H 3 3 00 E

00 co 3 co CO

aa Li Li < e CD i—

CO 3 E E 3 3

£3V LiO CO CD 3 3 3 X O' C > X n H H Pd E-i

viii
1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present the results of a project involving

the collection and tabulation of field data on the costs of retrofitting

low-income houses for energy conservation. This project is part of the

Community Services Administration (CSA) Weatherization Demonstration Program

being carried out through the National Bureau of Standards (NBS).l The

program involves the installation and evaluation of a broad range of energy

conservation techniques for over 200 single-family houses in 14 demonstration

sites throughout the United States. The results presented in this report

are in the form of summary statistics giving the mean, median, range, and

standard deviation of the unit cost of installing each architectural option

in each demonstration site. Statistics are also presented on such major

cost components as labor cost, materials cost, and overhead.

1 For an overview of the many research activities comprising this Weatherization Demonstration, see R. Crenshaw et al. , CSA Weatherization Demonstration Project Plan , National Bureau of Standards Interagency Report

79-1706, Washington, D.C., March 1979.

1
1.2 SCOPE

The energy conservation techniques discussed in this report consist of a variety of architectural modifications to building envelopes, usually referred

to as architectural options. These architectural options are divided into

two major groups: those that reduce heat losses due to direct conduction

through the envelope components, that is, walls, windows, attic and floor

(conduction options), and those that reduce heat losses due to air leakage

through cracks in or between the components (infiltration options). The

selection of the particular options to be installed at each demonstration

site was based on an economic analysis of predicted energy savings and estimated costs for each option.

All of the demonstration sites for which cost data on architectural options were reported are listed in table 1.1, along with the three-letter codes

often used in this report to reference the sites. Table 1.2 lists the

architectural options and indicates the number of dwellings for which cost

data were received for each architectural option in each demonstration

site. For any particular option-site combination, the cost data are summarized

in this report only if both labor and materials costs were reported separately

for at least four dwellings. The items of cost data which satisfy this

criterion and are thus presented in this report account for 87 percent of

all reported architectural option installations.

1.3 USEFULNESS OF COST DATA

The cost data collected over the course of this project are based on the

actual weatherization work conducted at the demonstration sites. Thus, future

estimates of the cost of installing various architectural options based on these data can be expected to have greater accuracy than would be possible

in the absence of such direct and specific experience. These architectural

cost data can also be used to assess the cost effectiveness of the weatherization options that were installed.

A very useful characteristic of the architectural cost data is that the data

reported for each option installed on a house include both the size of the

job (e.g., square feet of wall area insulated) as well as a separate accounting of labor and materials. With these detailed data, studies can be made

of the major sources of variation in the cost of an architectural option

from house to house and from site to site. Among the sources of variation

that can be studied using these data are possible economies of scale in terms

either of the number of square or lineal feet installed or of the thermal

resistance of the insulation added. Another source of variation is whether

the work was carried out under contract or on an in-house basis. Yet another

1 For a detailed discussion of how the economically optimal weatherization

options were selected for each site and fuel type, see R. Chapman et al.

Optimizing Weatherization Investments in Low-Income Housing: Economic

Guidelines and Forecasts , National Bureau of Standards Interagency Report

79-1948, Washington, D.C., February 1980.

2
Table 1.1

Metropolitan Area, State, and Abbreviation for the Demonstration

Sites in this Report

Metropolitan Area State Abbreviation

Albuquerque New Mexico ALB

Atlanta Georgia ATL

Charleston South Carolina CHA

Colorado Springs Colorado CSP

Easton/Allentown/Bethlehem Pennsylvania EAS

Fargo North Dakota FAR

Minneapolis/ St . Paul Minnesota MSP

Oakland California OAK

Portland Maine POR

St. Louis Missouri STL

Tacoma Washington TAC

Washington, D.C. Maryland3 WAS

a The dwellings at this site are located near Hughesville, Maryland.

3
Table 1.2

Number of Houses Reported by Architectural Option and City

City

Option

Description ALB ATL CHA CSP EAS FAR MSP OAK POR STL TAC WAS

Infiltration Options

Replace Broken Glass 4 2 a 12 15 15 6b 8 4 3 a

Reset Glazing l a l a 9 7 11 6 b l a 4

Replace Thresholds 2 a 17 16 5 l a l a l a

Seal Structural Cracks 3 a 3 a 18 13 2 a l a

Caulk Windows l a 2 a

Caulk Doors 2 a

Caulk Windows and Doors 3a 18 18 8 8 10

Weatherstrip Windows 3 a 7 11 7 b

Weatherstrip Doors 7 4 18 12 6 b 5 12 9 10

Weatherstrip Windows and Doors 3 a 15 12

Weatherstrip Attic Hatch 4 9 6

Conduction Options

Install Storm Windows 6 l a 16 15 9 10

Install Storm Doors l a 2 a

2a

Install Triple Glazing 5 7 7 13

Insulate Basement Walls w/Cellulose 10

Insulate Basement Walls w/Fiberglass Batts 5

Insulate Basement Walls w/High 9 b R Sheathing and Fiberglass Batts

Insulate Basement Walls w/Urea-Formaldehyde 7 10 3a

Install Foundation Vents 5

Install Foundation Vapor Barrier l a

3a

Insulate Crawl Space w/Styrofoam 2 a 11 l a 8

Insulate Crawl Space w/Urea-Formaldehyde 3 a 3 a

Insulate Floor Joists w/Fiberglass Batts 2 a 5 4 5

Insulate Rim Joists w/Fiberglass Batts 3 a 1/

Insulate Walls w/Cellulose 2 a 6 15 4 4

Insulate Walls w/Fiberglass 7

Insulate Walls w/Urea-Formaldehyde 10 12 17 5 Insulate Attic w/Cellulose 17 18 9 12 12 8 15 13 10

Insulate Attic w/Fiberglass 5 3 a

Insulate Attic w/Rock Wool 9 8 b 11 Install Attic Vents 3 a 2 a 2 a

a Because fewer than four dwellings were reported, cost data are not summarized in this report.

b Because labor and materials costs were not reported, cost data are not summarized in this report

. 4
use for these data would be in constructing a separate price index to apply

to each cost component in order to account for cost differences over time and across regions and thus permit accurate periodic revisions of cost estimates

based on these data.

/

v

5
2.0 DATA COLLECTION METHOD

2.1 DATA COLLECTION FORM

The first step in the process of collecting data on the costs of the

architectural options was the development of a standard form for reporting

the data. The form that was developed and used for this purpose is shown as figure 2.1. This Dwelling Unit Cost Data Form was used by personnel at the

demonstration sites to record information relevant to the cost reporting

of every architectural option installed in each house of the demonstration

program. The circled numbers on figure 2.1 provide a key to the following

types of information recorded on the form:

1. Code number of the dwelling being weatherized.

2. Building element being modified.

3. Energy conservation retrofit option being installed.

4. Job size or dimensions of the option being installed, measured in

square feet, lineal feet, or number of units treated.

5. Total cost of the option being installed including overhead

cost

6
I

j

7
6. Cost of preparation work normally required before the installation process itself.

7. Costs directly associated with the actual installation of the

option.

8. Two types of costs were recorded under Other Costs:

(a) The cost of doing any repairs to a building before the

option could be installed; and

(b) Some overhead cost items such as travel and supervision

for jobs done on an in-house basis.

9. Labor cost for each of items 6 through 8. The number of labor

hours of each labor skill, the rate paid per hour for that

skill and the total labor charges for that skill were recorded

separately.

10.

Materials costs for items 6 through 8. Specific information was given on the type of material used, the size of each unit of

the material, the number of units used, the cost per unit, and

the total cost for the material. For example, if 15 bags of

cellulose insulation were used, each bag costing $5.95, this

information and the resulting total material cost of $89.25 was recorded.

2.2 MONITORING THE DATA COLLECTION

The local project coordinator of each demonstration site was asked to fill

out and submit a trial Dwelling Unit Cost Data Form as soon as the first

architectural option was installed. The completed trial form revealed

possible uncertainties in reporting procedures and thus served as a basis

for establishing a workable and consistent set of guidelines for recording

and reporting the remaining cost data for each site. As data collection

forms were submitted, telephone conversations between NBS staff and the local

project coordinators were held to resolve ambiguities and supply missing

data. This type of direct communication between NBS staff and the local

project coordinators was found to be effective in improving the quality of

the data.

The progress of the cost data collection was monitored through the use of

Cost Data Tracking Charts. An individual chart was developed for each site

according to the particular options selected to be installed. As figure 2.2

illustrates with a hypothetical example, a typical Cost Data Tracking Chart

lists these architectural options vertically and the appropriate house code

numbers horizontally. Each cell at the intersection of a particular option

and house could contain any one of the three symbols defined at the top of

the chart. These charts provided at a glance the current status of the

architectural cost data reporting on a site-by-site basis.

8
Figure 2.2. Cost Data Tracking Chart

Note: 1. "X" indicates cost data already received.

2. Place "NA" in cells that represent options that will not be

installed on a particular house.

3. Place "0" in cells that represent completed work, but data

not yet submitted.

SITE

Coldspot, USA

HOUSE NUMBERS

OPTION 1 3 7 11 16 17 18 23 25 30 31 39

1 Replace Broken Glass NA NA X NA 0 NA NA NA X NA X X

2 Reset Glazing NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

3 Replace Thresholds NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

4 Seal Structural Cracks NA NA NA NA NA NA

5 Caulk Windows and Doors 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 Weatherstrip Windows and

Doors 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 Weatherstrip Attic Hatch

8 Install Storm Windows

9 Insulate Basement Walls 0 X 0 X X X X NA X X 0 0

10 Insulate Walls X X X X X X NA X X X X X

11 Insulate Attic X X X X X X X X 0 X NA X

9
3.0 DATA REDUCTION AND SYNTHESIS

In this section we discuss how the raw architectural cost data received from

the demonstration sites were used to develop the summary statistics presented

in section 4 for each option and site. The procedures for extracting, con- solidating, and analyzing the data were slightly different for each of three

categories of architectural work: (1) non-attic options; (2) attic options;

and (3) weatherization-related repair work. The procedures followed for

each category are discussed in turn.

3.1 NON-ATTIC OPTIONS

The first step in the data reduction process for non-attic options was to

extract the relevant information from each Dwelling Unit Cost Data Form and

to consolidate this information for all houses that had a particular option

installed in a given city. To accomplish this task the Composite Data Form

was developed. As illustrated in figure 3.1 using a hypothetical example,

this form specifies the demonstration site, the option, and whether the work

was performed under contract or in-house. Each row of this form presents

five items of information extracted from a single Dwelling Unit Cost Data

10
Figure 3.1 Composite Data Form

Site Coldspot, USA

Option Insulate Walls with UF Foam

Contracted or In-House Contracted

House

Number

Job

Size (sf)

Labor

Cost ($)

Materials

Cost ($)

Total

Cost ($)

3 848 208.00 121.75 523.92

7 744 160.00 146.75 405.47

16 917 128.00 121.75 526.22

17 752 112.00 116.75 374.45

25 912 128.00 136.75 435.33

30 1040 160.00 160.50 522.51

11
Form: (1) code number of the weatherized house; (2) job size or dimensions

of the architectural option installed; (3) labor cost of the installation;

(4) materials cost of the installation; and (5) total cost of the installed

option.

Two distinct accounting definitions of total cost were developed and applied

depending on whether the option was installed by contracted labor (contracted)

or by employees of the local community action agency (in-house). In the case

of contracted jobs, the definition of total cost is given by

T E L + M + OP, (3.1)

where T = Total cost reported as charged under the contract;

L = Labor cost reported for the option;

M = Materials cost reported for the option; and

OP = Overhead and profit calculated as a residual.

For contracted jobs, T, L, and M are recorded explicitly on the Dwelling Unit

Cost Data Form, whereas OP must be calculated as a residual on the basis of

equation (3.1). Overhead represents the fixed business expenses of the

contractor which arise independently of the volume of contracted business.

Examples of overhead expenses are office rent, insurance, management, and

clerical and administrative support. Also included in the residual OP is

the contractor's profit. In one city (CSP), the contractor's total charge

for installing storm windows was less than the sum of labor and materials

costs incurred. Here, rather than have the residual OP be negative, the sum of labor and materials costs was recorded as the total cost on the

Composite Data Form, under the assumption that contractors are not likely

to continue underestimating job costs.

In the case of in-house weatherization jobs, the definition of total cost

is given by

T E L + M + OT, (3.2)

where T = Total cost calculated as the sum of its components;

OT = Overhead and travel cost as reported for the option; and

L & M are as defined for equation (3.1), above.

For these jobs performed on an in-house basis, there is no reported contract

cost to use as the total cost of the option. Thus total cost has to be

calculated as the sum of its three reported components: L, M, and OT. OT

is derived from two types of cost items reported on the Dwelling Unit Data

Form: overhead and travel. Examples of the overhead items reported include

clerical support and certain management functions such as supervision, job

estimation, and inspection. No attempt was made to estimate or impute any

overhead expenses beyond those explicitly reported by the local community

action agencies. The other component of OT, travel cost, was consistently

reported and included both labor time spent in transit to and from the job

site and vehicle mileage costs.

12
A special cost accounting problem arose whenever two or more architectural

options for a house were reported on a single combined Dwelling Unit Cost

Data Form. In this situation a single total cost figure was always given

for the combined options, although the labor and materials costs could in

most cases be assigned to the separate options. Since the data for this

report were to be analyzed on an option-by-option basis, it was necessary

to determine a separate total cost figure for each of the options reported.

This figure was obtained by employing equation (3.3), which computed the

overhead and profit or overhead and travel multiplier applicable to the

cost of the labor and materials for the combined options and applied that

multiplier to the sum of labor and materials costs of each separate option:

T s = [T c / (L c+M c ) ] • [L s+Ms ], (3.3)

where T g = Total cost of a single option;

Tc = Total cost of the combined options;

Lc = Total labor cost of the combined options;

Mc = Total materials cost of the combined options;

Ls = Total labor cost of the single option; and

Ms = Total materials cost of the single option.

Another similar accounting problem occasionally arose when a single Dwelling

Unit Cost Data Form contained more than one architectural option. The materials were generally described in enough detail that the particular options for

which they were used could be easily discerned. On some forms, however, the

labor costs were found grouped together so that one could not tell how many

labor hours were spent on each option. To address this problem, the combined

labor costs were distributed among the options in proportion to the cost of

the materials used for each option. The following equation was used for

assuring this apportionment of combined labor costs:

L

g = (M s /M c

)

• L c , (3. A)

where L s = Labor cost to be calculated for the work of installing a single option;

Mg = Materials cost for the option for which labor cost is to be

calculated;

Mc = Total materials cost of the combined options; and

Lc = Total labor cost of the combined options.

The final accounting problem occurred only when two or more architectural

options were installed by the same contractor. Although a separate contract

cost figure may have been given for each option on an individual Dwelling

Unit Cost Data Form, occasionally the amounts reported did not reflect a realistic assignment of costs to each option. For example, in one city where

attics and walls were insulated by the same contractor, substantial losses

were reported on the attic installations (i.e., the contract cost was actually

less than the sum of labor and materials costs), while excessive profits were reported in the wall installations (i.e., the contract cost was more than

twice as much as the sum of labor and materials costs). The procedure followed to address this situation was to combine the cost data for the two

13
options under one contract and then redistribute the total contract overhead

and profit in proportion to the labor and materials costs of each option.

Equation (3.3) was used to carry out this cost redistribution, and the revised

data for each house and option were then recorded on the appropriate Composite

Data Form.

Once correctly recorded on the Composite Data Forms, all the relevant cost

data for each option-site combination were entered into a computer file. A

computer program was then used to retrieve the data from the file and calculate

several summary statistics for each of the following variables of that

option-site combination: job size (in square or lineal feet), unit labor

cost (labor cost per square or lineal foot) , unit material cost, unit overhead

cost, and unit total cost. The summary statistics calculated for each of

the above variables were the minimum, maximum, arithmetic mean, and median.

Two additional statistics for the total cost variable were then calculated:

its mean and standard deviation, both weighted by job size. All of these

summary statistics for each non-attic option are presented in subsections

4 . 1 and 4.2.1.

The arithmetic mean and the weighted mean of the unit total cost variable

differ from one another in their calculation and interpretation. The methods

of calculating these statistics are given by the following equations:

n

E (Ti/Si)

X = i=l , and (3.5)

n

n n

E (Ti/Si) .Si E Ti

X. = If* = 1=1 w n n

E S-l E Si

i=l i=l

where X_ = Unweighted arithmetic

Xw = Mean weighted by job size;

n = Number of jobs (dwellings) reported for the option and

site being considered;

Ti = Total cost of installing the option for each individual

dwelling; and

Si = Size of each individual job (If or sf).

To illustrate the difference between these two statistics, consider the

following example. Suppose for a particular site and option only two dwellings were retrofitted: on one house 1000 sf of wall area were insulated at

a cost of $1.00/sf, while on the other 500 sf of wall area were insulated

for $1.20/sf. The arithmetic, or unweighted, mean cost for this site would

be exactly halfway between the two unit cost amounts of the houses, namely

$1.10/sf. In this sense, the unweighted mean gives each individual job (or

(3.6)

mean;

14
dwelling) equal importance, regardless of the size (number of square or lineal feet) of the job. In contrast, for the same two jobs the weighted

mean would be $1.07/sf / 1.00 (1000) + 1.20 (500) \, which reflects the

V 1500 / relatively greater weight given by this statistic to the unit cost ($1.00/sf)

of the larger job than to that ($1.20/sf) of the smaller job. Thus the

weighted mean is a measure of the average cost of installing one square or lineal foot of the option for that demonstration site.

As mentioned earlier, the standard deviation weighted by job size of the

total cost variable is also computed. The formula used for calculating the

weighted standard deviation (SE^) is:

where the symbols are defined as for equations (3.5) and (3.6), above. This

statistic provides a measure of the variability of the unit cost of the

option across all houses within the demonstration site. This unit cost variation within a site may be due to several factors. The location of the house

may account for some variation because the travel component is a function of

distance from the assembly point of the work crew. The size of the job may

also affect unit cost because of possible economies of scale. This factor

is particularly important when fixed costs such as for travel or setting up

equipment represent a significant proportion of the total cost of installing

the option. Another cause of the variance in unit cost could be the differences found in the physical structures of the dwellings themselves. An

example of this would be the relatively higher unit cost of insulating a brick veneer wall compared with that of insulating a wood-frame wall.

3.2 ATTIC INSULATION

Procedures similar to those used for the cost data on non-attic options were followed for data on attic insulation. The major accounting problems encountered with attic insulation data were the determination of overhead costs and

the revision of total cost estimates for two or more options installed by the same contractor. These problems were dealt with in the manner described in

subsection 3.1 above. Once these accounting problems were resolved, the

relevant information for all houses was taken from the corrected Dwelling

Unit Cost Data Forms and consolidated onto the Composite Data Form for each

demonstration site. Besides the house number, job size, labor cost, materials

cost, and total cost recorded for the othert options , an additional variable;

had to be recorded for attic insulation: tne amount of thermal resistance

(R-value) added. This need arose because across each site, the sample

dwellings designated to have this option installed had variable amounts of

insulation already in their attics. Therefore, different amounts of insulation had to be installed in these attics to achieve the R-value recommended

for the particular site in question. In order to make the cost data for

attic insulation comparable across houses and sites, all the figures are presented on a per R-value basis. To accomplish this, the R-value of the

added insulation was calculated for each case using equation (3.8).

(3.7)

15
R = [W/(D • A)] • 12 V, (3.8)

where R = Thermal resistance of added insulation;

W = Weight of the loose-fill insulation added, as determined by

taking the product of the reported number of bags of insulation

added and the reported number of pounds per bag;

D = Density of the loose-fill insulating material once installed.

The values used in the calculations were 2.75 lb/cf for cellulose

insulation* and 2.0 lb/cf for rock wool insulation;

A = Area of attic floor covered by the added insulation, net of joists.

Since the area figures reported on the Dwelling Unit Cost Data

Forms are in gross terms (i.e., including joists), an adjustment

factor of 0.906 was used to convert the reported gross areas to

their corresponding net area values and

V = Thermal resistance of the insulating material per inch of added

thickness. The values used in the calculations were 3.7 sf»h»°F/Btu

for cellulose and 2.9 sf»h*°F/Btu for rock wool.^ Multiplication

by 12 converts these values to R-values per foot of thickness.

To illustrate the application of equation (3.8), suppose a Dwelling Unit Cost

Data Form reported that 15 bags of cellulose, each containing 30 pounds of

material, were blown into an attic with 500 gross square feet of area. The

R-value of the added insulation in this case would be approximately 16:

R = (15 ) (30 )(12 ) (3 ,7 ) = 16 . 0 4.

(2. 75) (5 00) (0.906)

* This value is the midpoint of the density range for cellulose published

in American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning

Engineers, Inc. ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals , New York, 1972, p. 361.

^ This value is based on the density range for rock wool given in Brookhaven

National Laboratory, An Assessment of Thermal Insulation Materials and

Systems for Building Applications , Report No. BNL-50862, June 1978,

pp. 80—81.

O This adjustment factor was determined by assuming a typical joist width of

1.5 in and 16 in on center construction. Thus, out of every 16 in of lineal

dimension across the joists, 14.5 in are net of joists. These figures work

out to a ratio of net to gross area of 0.906. It should be noted that this

value ignores the effect of half the area of the two outermost joists. In

addition, this approach assumes that none of the added insulating material

lies above the top of the joists.

^ These values are taken from Brookhaven National Laboratory, An Assessment

of Thermal Insulation Materials and Systems for Building Applications , pp. 80-84.

16
Once all of these values were calculated they were recorded on the Composite

Data Forms along with the other information as specified for the non-attic

options. With this additional information, the variation in amount of insulation added to the attics of the individual dwellings was taken into account

when analyzing the corresponding costs.

The information from the Composite Data Forms, including the calculated

R-value of the added attic insulation, was entered into a computer file.

These attic cost data were processed somewhat differently from the non-attic

data. Specifically, to control for the variation in amount of insulation

added to each attic, all cost data items are denominated in terms of cents

per square foot per R-value before the minimum, maximum, arithmetic mean,

and median values are generated. In addition, these four summary statistics

are calculated and printed for the R-value added variable. Furthermore, the

two weighted statistics that are calculated for the total cost variable for

attic insulation are not only weighted by job size, but by R-value as well.

The equations applied to attic cost data to calculate the unweighted arithmetic

mean and the mean weighted by job size and R-value, respectively, are:

n

Z (T± /S i

• X = i=l , and

n

(3.9)

n

Z T,

X = Izl

w

(3.10)

n

Z S ±

• Rt i=l

where R^ = R-value added to the attic and the remaining symbols are defined

as for equations (3.5) and (3.6). Similarly, because of the need to account

for variable R-values, the equation used to obtain the weighted standard

deviation of total costs was modified as follows:

n n SD„

=J

Z (T1 /S

1

• R

t - X„)‘ • < Si

• V Z S

i

• V> 1 i=l i=l

(3.11)

where all the symbols are defined as for equations (3.9) and (3.10).

All of the summary statistics for attic insulation are presented in

subsection 4.2.2 by demonstration site.

3.3 WEATHERIZATI ON-RELATED REPAIR WORK

During the weatherization process, the need sometimes arose for a certain

building component to be repaired in conjunction with the installation of an energy conservation option. For example, in several instances it was necessary to repair a roof before attic insulation could be installed

17
These weatherization-related repairs occurred so infrequently and irregularly,

however, that the cost data on them do not warrant being analyzed statistically.

Instead, total expenditures for weatherization-related repair work are presented in subsection 4.3 by demonstration site and type of repair work.

18
4.0 DATA PRESENTATION

4.1 INFILTRATION OPTIONS

In this subsection the summary statistics described in subsection 3.1 are presented for the infiltration group of architectural options. Recall that

the criterion for including cost data in this presentation is that both

labor and materials cost data must have been reported for at least four

dwellings for a particular option-site combination. There is a separate

table for each option-site combination; all the infiltration options for

each site are grouped together; and the tables for each site are presented

in alphabetical order according to the name of the nearest metropolitan

area. The abbreviations used in the tables are defined as follows:

MIN = Minimum OVERHEAD

MAX = Maximum

SF = Square feet

LF = Lineal feet

LABOR = Unit labor cost TOTAL

MATERIAL = Unit materials cost °.TD DEV

Unit overhead and profit for

work done under contract and

unit overhead and travel cost

for work done in-house.

Unit total cost

Standard deviation

19
ALBUQUERQUE NN

REPLACE BROKEN CLASS

WORK 00 NE IN-HOUSE

6 JOBS REPORTED

sasa ss aassaasss

a a a a ax aaaaaaaaa

xzssx xza

aaxasaaa

aaa saaszazzszszazz

SUHMARY STATISTICS

aasasazsszsaszssaz

zasaz zz zz szzzz aaaaaaaa a a aa

aaaa aaaa

HIN HAX WEAN HE D I AN

JOB SIZEISFI 6.1 36.9 15.0 10.6

LABOR

l /SF 1 0.511 5.007 1.898 1.036

HATE RI AL ! l/SF0-726 10.827 3.667 1.537

OVERHEAOCt/SF0.158 1.393 0.526 0.277

TOTAL! i/SF ) 1.833 17.227 6.081 2.632

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED 9T JOB SIZE

1EAN(t/SF) - 3-226 STD DEVU/SF) * 3.826

ALBUQUERQUE NH

WEATHERSTRIP DOORS

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

7 JOBS REPORTED

iaaa aaa aaaaaaaa a aaa a aa a a SUiHARY STAI ISTICS

aaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaa

aa aaa aaaa

a a a aa aaaa

aaaa a a aa a a

aaaa aaaaaa

HIN NA> HE AN HE D I AN

JOB SIZE1LF) 31.5 51.0 38.9 36.0

LABOR! WLF » 0.265 1.326 0.580 0. 560

HATERI ALU/LF ) 0.266 2.266 0.96 7 0.720

OVERHEAD! t/LF ) 0.080 0.162 0.110 0.119

TOTAL! S/LF ) 0.696 3.656 1.636 1.296

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

If AN(t/LF) « 1-67) STD OCV(WLF) = 0.926

2D
ATLANTA GA

WEATHERSTRIP DOORS

WORK DONE I N—HOUSE

4 JOBS REPORTED

SUMMARY STATISTICS

MIN HAX MEAN ME 0 IAN

JOB SIZE(LF) 19.0 30.0 23.6 22.6

LABOR C S/LF 1 0.091 0.315 0.225 0.247

MATERIALIS/LF) 0.149 0.413 0.269 0.257

QYERHEADU/LF) 0.042 0.152 0.109 0.120

TOTAL C S/LF 1 0.465 0.007 0.602 0.568

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

MEAN! S/LF

)

- 0.593 STC OEVU/LFI 0. 123

sssasa sxs3tasassR«9 aa saa MmmrnmmmmmmmMM ssssasa x caxx ass astsxas

ATLANTA GA

WEATHERSTRIP ATTIC HATCH

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

4 JOBS REPORTEO

SUMMARY STATISTICS

MIN MAX 1» AN ME D I AN

JOB SIZE4LF I 8.0 16.0 10.5 9.0

LABOR ( S/LF I 0.147 0.472 0.267 0.225

MATE R I AL C S/LF 1 0.070 0.348 0. 190 0. 171

0Y£ R HE AO C S/LF ) 0.052 0.179 0.089 0. 062

TOTAL ( S/LF 1 0.272 o.tas 0.546 0. t 12

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTEO BY JOB SIZE

MEAN! S/LF) - 0.599 STP DEVIS/LF) 0.257

21
CHARLESTON SC

REPLACE BROKEN CLASS

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

12 JOBS REPORTED

2 2 3 32XXX2X2XXXX

222322 2222X2222

22 2 2 22 2 2

222 2222 2

2X22222222222222 22

SUMMARY STATISTICS

222 222X22222222X22

2X22 2 222XX

XX22X X222X

2 XX X 3 XX

X 22 3 2 XX .

MIN MAX MEAN MED IAN

JOB SIZECSFI 2.6 16.9 5.9 4.8

LABOR! S/SF ) 0.833 4. 491 1.830 1.564

flATERlALIi/SF) 0.877 2.500 1.422 1.246

OVERHE AD ! W SF

)

0.335 4.138 1.45Z 0.966

TOTAL! S/SF

)

3.239 7.929 4.704 4.107

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED B Y JOB SIZE

MEANlt/SF) * A. 391 STD DEVIWSF) - 1.190

CHARLESTON SC

RESET GLAZING

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

9 JOBS REPORTED

SUMMARY STATISTICS

32X2 2X2222X2 XX 2222 222 3 X 932 X9X3XXXXXXXXX 2X2 X X XX 2232 X 323 X22XXX

MIN MAX MEAN MEO I AN

JOB SIZE!LF) 8.0 500.0 16 3.8 175.0

LABOR! i/LF

I

0.129 0.562 0.246 0 .213

MATERI ALIi/LF

)

0.024 0.12 5 0.060 0.043

OVERHEAD ( % /LF

)

0.016 0.339 0.111 0.090

TOTAL! t/LF 1 0.181 1.02 6 0. 41 7 0.375

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

MEAN ! l/LF ) * 0.2f4 STD Of Vli/LFI 0. Ill

: 3 X 3 X 3 3 2 XXX3XXX X X 2 2 2 2 X 2 X 3X2 2332XXXXXXX3X 2X2 93X2323X2

22
CHARLESTON SC

REPLACE THRESHOLDS

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

17 JOBS REPORTED

SUNNARY STATISTICS

HIN MAX 4 E AN MEDIAN

JOB SIZEILF) 2.7 12.0 5.7 5.3

LABOR! t/LF i 0.743 3.585 1.990 1.887

NATERI ALI t/LF

)

1.000 1.132 1.065 1. 126

OVERHE ADI t/LF

)

0.298 7.062 1.404 0.900

TOTAL! t/LF 1 2.775 10.635 4.479 3 . 806

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

NEANI t/LF ) * 4.598 STD OF V 1 t/LF ) 1. 922

xast333ssxazsss< 33333333 33 3 333 33 3SSS3 333333333333333 3 3 3 3 3=3.

CHARLESTON SC

SEAL STRUCTURAL CRACKS

WORK OONE IN-HOUSE

13 JOBS REPOPTED

3 aisixaaxxzsaass

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 33 3 3 33 3

33333333 333 3333333333 333 3 333333 33333

SUNNARY STATISTICS

3 3 7 33333333 333 3333333333333333333333

3333333:

3 33 3 3 3 3:

HIN MAX NEAN ME 0 I AN

JOB SIZEILF) 10.0 128.0 B8.0 23.0

LABOR 1 t/LF ) 0.475 4.913 1.900 1.825

NATERI ALIt/LF) 0.214 3.217 0.806 0.640

OVERHEADIt/LF

)

0.252 2.310 1.073 1.138

TOTAL! t/LF

)

1.129 10. *40 3.779 3.279

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

NEANI t/LF ) * 2.678 STD DEVIi/LF) 2.105

3333333333333333 333333S333S 3333333333 33333 X33S333333 3 3 3 3 3 3 3:

23
CHARLESTON SC

CAULK WINDOWS AND DOORS

WORK DONE IN—HOUSE

I 3 JOBS REPORTED

SUMMARY STATISTICS

MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOB SIZE(LF) 160.1 457.0 259.7 250.0

LABOR! t/LF ) 0.075 0.134 0.107 0.110

MATERI ALIt/LF) 0.016 0.045 0.028 0.028

OVERHE AD( t/LF

)

0.012 0.305 0.075 0.043

TOTAL! t/LF 1 0.115 0.457 0.209 0. 182

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

MEAN I t/L F ) « 0.192 STD DEVIi/LFI 0. 085

>313 333SSSX2333 * flKKS SSXX3 3333S33S3CS£CSZ3 3C33SXrSXXXZ asx x asxs as 3

CHARLESTON SC

WEATHERSTRIP WINDOWS AND

WORK DUNE IN-HOUSE

15 JOBS REPORTED

DOORS

SUMMARY STATISTICS

MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOB SiZEILF) 28.

8

>4.0 48.4 33.0

LABOR! S/LF

>

0« 036 0.372 0.186 0.165

MATE RI AL ( 1 /LF 1 0.116 0.344 0.165 0. Id2

3YERHEA0! t/LF J 0.034 0.765 0.18 7 0.097

TOTAL! t/LF I 0.241 1.400 0.558 0.426

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEICHTEO BY JOB SIZE

MEAN! t/LF

>

» 0.506 STD DEVU/LFI 0.259

24
COLORADO SPRINGS CO

REPLACE BROKEN GLASS

WORK DONE UNDER CONTRACT

15 JOBS REPORTED

xxxxxxxxxxxXi

SUMMARY STATISTICS

aa« x xx x xxxx x ssas* tssaftsiaaaa * aysaakasss * * sas * ss a 2 as as as x >aa aaa

* HIN HAX MEAN MEOI AN

JOB SIZECSF) 1.0 29.1 9.8 6.8

LABOR ! t / SF

)

0.097 3.000 0.999 0. 738

MATERIALCt/SF

)

1.167 21.000 2.912 1.350

0VERHEADU/SF1 0.177 9.000 2.02 6 0. 839

TOTALI S/SF ) 1.515 33.000 5 , 9j 7 3.192

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOb SIZE

NE4N! S/SF

)

- 3.360 STD DE V! i/SF i 2. 896

aaaasaaass X2S2 * * * * XXXXXXXX XX a s xxxxxx XXSXXXXSXX XXXXX X X X X S X 3

COLORADO SPRINGS CO

RESET GLAZING

WORK DONE UNDER CONTRACT

7 JOBS REPORTED

aaaaaaaasavaas xx xx SUMMARY STATISTICS

X XX s X XX

HIN MAX MEAN

ja si jil jA a* ji a -

MEDIAN

JOB SIZEILFI 8.0 150.0 J 9. 9 25.0

LABOR! t/LF ) 0.036 1.260 0.275 0.122

MATERIAL! $/LF) 0.235 2.750 0.79 7 0.567

DVERMEADIS/LF ) 0.066 0.980 0.275 0.170

TOTAL! t/LF ) 0.595 5.990 l. 35 7 0.6 98

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

MEAN! l/LF

X 0.73 3 STD OEVU/LF) 0. 75 9

tasasxzaassxaas X X XX XXXXXXXX XX XX XXX X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXX xx s' * X x * » X

25
COLORADO SPRINGS CO

REPLACE THRESHOLDS

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

16 JOBS REPORTED

SUMMARY STATISTICS

m

m

a2 siassssssBzcssxssassaaasssi xxass mm XXXI1Z *1 XX 1>IX R

HIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOB SIZE1LF) 3.0 05 •

Ul 5.6 5.3

LAB 0R( i/LF ) 0.166 1.502 0.676 0.362

MATERI ALIS/LFI 0.750 l.OOC 0.910 0.913

OVtRMEAD!i/LF ) 0.272 3.510 0.616 0.652

T0TALIS/LF1 0.888 6.523 2.001 1.837

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTEO BY JOB SIZE

1EANH/LF) * 1.889 STD DEVfl/LF) 0. 736

aaasassxasaazssss at k s ac s x aaa a aaazm mm m m mm m mmmm itzz a xxa z mmm mmmmmmm

COLORADO SPPINGS CO

SEAL STRUCTURAL CRACKS

WORK 90NE IN-HOUSE

13 JOBS REPORTED

asaaaasassaxi mm

m

mmmm mm saaaaaaasa

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

SUMMARY

mmm m mm mm m m m m mm m

mmm mm mm mm mm mmm mm mmmm m STATISTICS

mmmmmmmmmsmmrnmmm mmmm m

mmm m mmmm mm mmmmmmmmmm

‘A MIN MAX MEAN ME 01 AN

JOB SIZECLF) 5.0 65.0 16.

2

15.0

LAB OR C $/LF ) 0.053 0.630 0 • 19 d 0. 153

MATERIAL! S/LF ) 0.106 0.675 0.3<,6 0.317

OVER HE AD!t / LF

J

0.015 0.266 0.115 0. 116

TOTAL! 1 /LF I 0.387 1.228 0.657 0. 59 <

TOTAL COST STATISTICS NriGHTED BY JOB SIZE

MEAN! t/LF

)

* 0.593 S TO DEV! WLF ) 0. 227

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa mmmmmmmmmmm mmmm saasacats zzs z z t s z a az r xz* rrararz

26
COLORADO SPRINGS CO

CAULK M I NOONS AND DOORS

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

18 JOBS REPORTED

SUMMARY STATISTICS

NIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOB SIZE1LF) 76*0 233.0 139.7 130.0

LABOR! S/LF

1

0.015 0.126 0.05 5 0.052

MATERIALIS/LFI 0.037 0.167 0.083 0.076

OYERHE AO ! S /LF > 0.005 0.106 0.038 0.026

TOTAL! S/LF 1 0.066 0.395 0.176 0.168

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

MEAN! S/LF 1 « 0.155 STD OEV(i/LF) 0. 07L

sasssssasssssi SSSSXSSSI 139 S3ZSSZS3XZKXC X13XSXS XS9S9 S9SSSXZ

COLORADO SPRINGS CO

WEATHERSTRIP WINDOWS

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

7 JOBS REPORTED

9 39 99 999S9 99SaSa«S «s«99 aS99aax«g;Ca9 9S99SSX9 *22 X 2 2 2 2

SUMMARY STATISTICS

s 22 * ax 2.3 '

MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOB SIZECLF) 7.0 120.0 38.0 30.0

LABOR! S/LF ) 0.080 0.959 0.393 0.256

MATERIAL! S/LF ) 0.037 0.357 0.255 0.286

QYERHE ADIS /LF ) 0.001 0.085 0.05 7 0.055

TOTALIS /LF > 0.238 1.239 0.665 0 . 566

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

ME4NIS/LFI - 0.570 STO DE V ( i / L F ) 0. 395

(aaaa a aaazaaaxaaaaa asaaa aaa aaasaaaaaassa sms x sxx 2222 xc 2 2 2 2 2 22

27
Colorado springs cc

WEATHERSTRIP DOORS

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

13 JOBS REPORTED

SUMMARY STATISTICS

JOS SIZE(LF)

LABOR! S/LF )

MAT ER I AL ! l/LF ) OVERHEADd/LF )

TOT AL ( l/LF )

MIN MAX

7.0 50.0

0.043 0.590

0.003 0.439

0.001 0.305

0.1II 1.334

MEAN MEDIAN

33.9 33.0

0.210 0. 191

0 • lb 7 0 . 140

0 • Oti 3 0.05b

0.459 0. 387

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

ME AN! t/LF I * 0.453 STD 0EVI1/LFI = 0.264

COLORADO SPRINGS CO

WEATHERSTRIP ATTIC HATCH

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

9 J08S REPORTED

SUMMARY STATISTICS

M IN MAX MEAN ME 0 I AN

JOS SIZEILF) 5.3 20.0 10.5 8.0

LABOR! l/LF 1 0.044 0.479 0.238 0.202

MATERIAL!1/LF

)

J • 04'* 0,147 0. 114 0. 130

0YERHEA0C1/LF > 0.011 0.25 3 0.086 0.056

TOTAL! l/LF 1 0.15b 0.755 0.438 0.372

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

ME AN! l/LF

)

« 0.447 STD DEVIt/LF* 0. 215

*^*>»***»a*»*a******«ai**3 a » a asaacwaBscaBxajBaesssxsasaxsxsaesassa

28
EASTON PA

REPLACE BROKEN GLASS

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

IS JOBS REPORTED

assaaraasasaasaaissasas as a * »» BamztxCBBCxi^xi ax x: * a a a a a* aixiiiiix

SUN MAR Y STATISTICS

MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOB SIZE(SF) 0.6 36.3 11.3 8.5

LABOR! %/SF » 0.184 9.962 2. 8 3 A 1.802

MATERI ALU/SFI 0.297 3.259 1.900 2 . 042

OVERHEAD! t/SF

0.020 A. 600 0.726 0 . 345

TOTAL! i/SF ) 0.501 16.150 5.463 A. 537

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED ev JOB SIZE

MEAN! S/SF

- 3.779 STD CEVU/SF) 2.8 7*

xxxxxxsxxxxxxx x x * a s xxxxkxsz x x XX X X X X SZ X X1XS XZSZ X X 3 ,

EASTON PA

RESET GLAZING

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

II JOBS REPORTED

SUMMARY STATISTICS

MIN MAX MEAN ME D I AN

JOB SIZE!LF) 6.0 46.0 23.5 12.0

LABOR! t/LF 1 O.0 36 0.222 0.123 0. 103

MATERI AL!t/LF

0.033 0.167 0.104 0. 132

OVERHEAD! t/LF

0.005 0.069 0.025 O.Olo

TOTAL' S/LFI 0.060 0. A1 3 0.262 0.249

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED R Y JOB SIZE

0.133 STP DEVd/LF) * 0.107

c * s. * w m -

J.9

MEAN! t/LF )
EASTON PA

caulk windups and doors

W JRK OCNE IN-FLUSE

3 JOBS REP LPT t-0

s a = — s : = = = =;- = i:iiz£sxxsx“j33 = t = c= itsz:xc:r=;2=::;i=3xi=r-=-ir

SUMMARY STATISTICS

* ~~~ -*-==== = = = - -= 2 2 2 3Z SSSS 3 X X * * ~ * = - = = *- * = = » r = = = : z z

PIN HA X NC AN ME 0 I AM

JOB SIZE(lP) 13.5 109.0 10 2.9 12 1.5

LASQRI i/LP

)

C.091 0. l<i 1 0.075 0 . 06o

MATERlALIi/LF

)

0.035 C.L5 5 0. 09 0 0 . 05 j

OVtRHEAOC S/LF

)

C.C07 2.119 0.2 7 'i 0.017

T JT Ai_ ( 1/LF > 0.097 2.295 0.903 0 • 1 3u

TOTAL CCS T STATISTICS WEIGHT tO BY JOB S 17

1

MEAN! S/LF

)

*= 0.399 ST C OF V C l / L F J 0 • 6 3 0

EASTON PA

WEATHERSTRIP WINDOWS AMO DUCPS

WJR* DUNE IN-FGUSE

12 JOBS REPORTED

= 3======= = == = ===

r c z z zixxs

2 2 3 X 2 2 23

:3a3s*s2ss**t**=-5ssr ssss

SUMMARY STATISTICS

= 3= 3 333* = *3=*==*a -= = ===== = 33= = =* = = === = =

HIN H AX MEAN Mr. 0 I AN

JJi SIZFILF) 2 5.0 5 C . 0 9 5.8 50'. 0

L A 3 J R ( l/LF ) C.lll 3.019 0.62 1 0 . 9 1 i

MATERIAL ( k/LF

)

0.115 1.070 0.306 U . 2 3t>

a/. R It- AO ( % /LF > C.lMl 1 . fc<_ 3 0.237 0 . 005

nr al t i/t.F » 0 .309 ‘ i < 1.169 0.795

TOTAL COST STATISTICS LIGHTED BY JOb SIZE

1EAN(l/LF) * 1.161 SfC DPV(WLF) * l.lbt

= ;33333 = 333333= = x==S3333=s = = = == rii*5:**=* = == == == = = =« = = - = - = '

30
FARGO NO

WEATHERSTRIP WINDOWS

WORK OONE UNDER CONTRACT

11 JOBS REPORTED

i aaasasssaxaAissxti =s ax : SUNN ARY STATISTICS

;xxxxxxxxx ass:

MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOB SIZEILFI 75.0 261.0 163.9 187.0

LABOR! t/LF > 0.053 0.159 0. 12 1 0.125

MATERIAL! WLF ) 0.038 0.399 0. 128 0.111

OVERHEAD ! S/LF I 0.101 0.365 0. lo2 0. 163

TOTAL ! 1/LF ) 0.200 0.921 0.530 0.508

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOb SIZE

MEAN! t/LF » xsaa sasaaa saax

x

* 0.529

cza sax a a 3 3* x

STD

X X X XXX X XX

DEY!1/LF*

xxxxxxxxxx x x x x x

0. 153

s x x s x x s ;

FARGO ND

WEATHERSTRIP DOORS

WORK DONE UNDER CONTRACT

12 JOBS REPORTED

laaaaaxaassaaaaa

laasaaaasasa s x x x

Kssssasx a x x aazsxzssacB ax* x x x x xxxxsxxx

SUMMARY STATISTICS

xxxxxxxx axxaxxazzzzr s x x * xxx: a ax a a sax

x x a x xsx.

X X X X XXX)

, MIN MAX MEAN Mt DI AN

JOB SIZE!LF» 37.3 17.3 37.3 37.3

LABOR! t/LF

)

0.161 0.65 3 0. 32 2 0. 3 22

MATERIAL! t/LF » 0.26* 0.265 0. ?65 0.265

OVERHEAD! V /LF) 0.005 0.009 0.008 0 .0 09

TOTAL! S/LF ) 0.532 0.916 0.595 0 . 595

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEI GHTfcO BY JOB S iZ

E

MEAN! t/LF

1

- 0.595 STD

• DEV ! l /l r

)

0.11*

b aaa as a za za aass s XXX X X X X X a at a x sxxxxxxxx ssaa xx x » i • - a x x x

:

31
0 AKL AND CA

REPLACE BROKEN GLASS

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

3 JOBS REPORTEO

t 3333333333 * 33 * [3**33*3333333*

*3*3*33*3 3*3 3333*3*3**333333*3 3 3 SSSSS

SUMMARY STATISTICS ********* 333 s s s s s ******** 33333 33 sssss

S S 3 3 S S 3 3 3 Z

S 3 3 S 3 33 3 3 3

MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOB SIZE(SF) 6.3 52.6 26.5 17.0

LABOR ( i/SF ) 0.6 30 6.937 1.601 1.167

NATERlALU/SF) 0.550 5.161 1.755 1.090

OVERHEAD! i/SF

0.138 2.305 0.910 0.626

TOTAL! S/SF ) 1.567 10.215 6.266 3. 902

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED eY JOB SIZE

MEAN! S/SF« 5.113 STD OEVCS/SF) 2.833

3 S3 33*3333333* *3333***3 S 3 3 S3 ********3SZ3S.2SS333X3Z3 sssxssssss

OAKLAND CA

REPLACE THRESHOLDS

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

5 JOBS REPORTED

3 3 3 S3 X33333SSS3

3333 33 3S3S 33333

S S 3 SSSSS

3 3 S SSSSS

S 3 3 SSSSSSSSSSSSSS3

SUMMARY STATISTICS

-S339SSSSS 3S SS S * S SS

3 3 ***** 3*

3 3 S S3 S3 S3

3 3 3 3 Z33-S

S3 SS S3 33

MIN MA> MEAN MEDIAN

JOB SIZECLF) 3.0 9.0 5.6 6.0

LA3 OR ( S /LF I 0.697 1.268 0.768 0.673

MATERI ALIS/LFI 0.817 1.250 1.069 1.167

OVE RHE AO ( S/LF ) 0.187 0.698 0 • 3b8 0.653

TOTAL! S/LF ) 1.500 2.86 8 2.2 OS 2,227

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

MEANIl/LF) - 2-265 STD OEVO/LF) = 0.607

333333333*3*333333333333 xaaz 3 ssxss«csKS 2 se=a ?? » x***x» 3 SSXS33 S 3

32
OAKLAND CA

WEATHERSTRIP DOORS

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

5 JOBS REPORTED

laaxassxxxsssas

asaxaa as as a a as

aaaaaaaaaaaa sasasssssaaaa

SUMMARY STATISTI

aaaa asasaaaa assasssa aaaaa

aaa am aa aaaa a CS

aaaaasa aaaa a

aaaaa as

a as aaaa

HIN MAX IE AN MEDIAN

JOB SIZECLF) 17.8 77.3 45.6 38.7

LABOR! */LF 1 0.139 0.436 0.266 0.256

MATERI ALCt/LF

)

0.272 0.459 0.369 0.362

OVERHEADU/LF) 0.071 0.242 0.128 0.110

TOTAL! $/LF 1 0.590 1.138 0.763 0.672

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

MEAN! WLF I - 0.832 STD DEVU/LFJ 0.224

aaa assssssssss ssassssaaaaaaa aaaa as a a asa a a a a a a a aaaaa aaaaa aa

.

33
PORTLAND HE

REPLACE BROKFN CLASS

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

<i JOBS REPORTED

:********.;s***x*x*

saaasazarzaxzxsx

*******

* * * * * * *

XX* ***************

SUNHARY STATISTICS

  ** ************

***** ****

* ** ** * ***

**** * * *S :

**** X X SX

HIN H AX HEAN HE D I AN

JOB SIZE(SF) 4.0 21.9 11.6 10.2

LABOR ( 4/SF I 0.542 2.250 1.162 0.928

NATERI ALft/SF I 0.786 1.65 9 1.114 1.006

OVERHEADIl/SF) a 0.000 1.080 0.270 0.000

TOTALIS/SF 1 1.560 4.512 2.546 2.056

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

NEANIS/SF) * 2.022 STD DEV(WSF) 0.805

OVERHEAD AND TRAVEL COSTS WERE NOT REPORTED FOR ALL THESE HOUSES

PORTLAND HE

RESET GLAZING

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

4 JOBS REPORTED

SUNHARY STATISTICS

HIN H AX HEAN hedian

JOS SIZE(LF) 3.0 36.0 18.2 16.8

LABOR! S/LF

)

0.750 2.096 1.496 1.568

HATE RI AL ( 1 /LF

)

0.251 3.636 1.74 7 1. 550

OVER iEADCt/LF > a 0.000 O.COO 0.000 0.000

TOT AL( S/LF ) 2.179 5.273 3.243 2.759

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

HE AN ( t/LF ) - 2.961 STD CFVIi/LFI = 1.268

* axa a a * * s s s * s ** 4K*****sxaass ssssssssSsczsszsssssssssssssssssscs

d OVERHEAD AND TRAVEL COSTS WERE MOT REPORTED FOR ALL THESE HOUSES

34
PORTLAND ME

CAULK WINOOWS AND DOORS

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

8 JOBS REPORTED

zzzz asssascseas

m zm m m issasassass xa a a atasa

iasaaasss«sBssxsa>sx«s xsss

SUMMARY STATISTICS

xxs jsaxxsxxscs czaasxxia sza=

x z z« z z xx .

zzzz zzzz

MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOB SIZE(LF) 32.0 323.0 165.6 152.0

LABOR! t/LF

»

0.067 0.168 0.113 0. 119

MATERI AL! WLF ) 0.028 0.2*7 0.103 0.100

OVE RHE ADI $/LF ) a 0.000 0.186 0.050 0.021

TOTAL! i/LF ) 0.100 0.509 0.266 0.22*

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

MEAN($/LF» - 0.2*3 STD LEV<i/LF) = 0.082

zzzzzzzzzxxzzzxxxzx»*x«zzzzxzzzzxxzzzzzzzzzzzxzxxxzzzzzzzzzzzz

3 OVERHEAD AND TRAVEL COSTS WERE NOT REPORTED FOR ALL THESE HOUSES

PORTLAND ME

WEATHERSTRIP DOORS

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

12 JOBS REPORTED

zzxzxxxzzzxzxzx

332= ZZ Z X ZX Z = £X S

xxzzzzxz

szzzxxxz

zsz zxzzzzzzzzxzzzz

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Z Z X ZXZZZZZZXZZZZZX

z z z zz z z

Z Z Z ZZ Z 3B

zzzzzz zzzz zzzzzz zzzz

MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOi SIZEILFI 16.3 *0.0 35.8 36.8

LABOR! 1/LF

1

0.056 0.612 0.192 0. 125

MATERI AL!t/LF) 0.3*3 0.906 0 • *2 6 0. 382

OVERHEAO ( S /LF | a 0.000 1.236 0.18* 0.095

TOTAL! l/Lf 1 0. *85 2.19 8 0.802 0.631

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

ME AN ! S /LF ) - 0.811 STD LEVU./LF) « 0.*88

3 3S3 3 33 8SSSS83i:CCtSK«SlS«X3 33SSSSSSXXrS'SXS2Z*3SXZaiXSXSXX3SSSSS

3

OVERHEAD AND TRAVEL COSTS WERE NOT REPORTED FOR ALL THESE HOUSES

35
P OR TL AND HE

WEATHERSTRIP ATTIC HATCH

WORK DONE I h—HOUSE

b JOBS REPORTED

333 3 33SX3S3X3SS

333 3 33 3333 SSSSS

XSSCSSS3333 3333

SUMMARY

ZZZZ33Z3 333 3333

ZBZ3SZZ:ZS33 3333 33 333

STATISTICS

3 333333333333 33333 33 3

3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 3 3 3 3 33

MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOB SIZF(LF) 4.0 17.0 8.8 8.0

LAiORIt/LF

)

0. 175 1.125 0.887 1.125

MATERIAL (i/LF

)

0. 113 1.772 0.568 0.275

OVERHEAD! S/LF J3 0.000 0.372 0.109 0.017

TOTAL! t/LF ) 0.450 3.270 1.564 1.492

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

MEAN! t/LF

)

* 1.236 STC DEV!i/LFI 0. 786

36
4.2 CONDUCTION OPTIONS

4.2.1 Non-Attic Conduction Options

In this subsection the summary statistics described in subsection 3.1 are presented for non-attic architectural options in the conduction group. The same criterion for inclusion applies as for infiltration options: both labor

and materials cost data must have been reported for at least four dwellings

for a particular option— site combination. These tables are to be read in

the same way as those for infiltration options in the previous subsection.

ALBUQUERQUE NH

INST ALL STORH WINOOWS

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

6 JOBS REPORTED

SUNMARY STATISTICS

KIN HAX HE AN MEDIAN

JOB SIZE(SF) 10 8.0 360.

C

190.0 175.0

LAB JR( t/SF ) 0.163 C.347 0.228 0.204

HAT5-UALU/SF) 0.256 2.810 0.936 0.635

QYcRHE ADI t/SF ) 0.016 0.053 0.039 0.041

TOTAL! i/SF ) 0.461 2.994 1.202 0.943

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

MEAN! t/SF ) « 1.49 3 STC CEV1S/SF) = 1.036

39
ATLANTA GA

INSTALL TRIPLE GLAZING

NORK DONE UNDER CONTRACT

5 JOBS REPORTED

SUMMARY STATISTICS

: 2 zsss sx :

MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOB SIZE(SF) 60.0 135.

108.0 115.0

LABOR! t/SF ) 0.287 0.549 0.415 0.388

MATERIAL (S/SF ) 0.519 3.060 1.624 1.924

OYERHEADU/SF) 0.087 0.787 0.456 0.444

TOTAL! S/SF 1 1.250 3.646 2.494 2.637

TOTAL COST STATISTICS HE I GHTEO BY JOB SIZE

MEAN! 1/SF ) * 2.587 STD DEVU/SF) = 0.906

40
CHARLESTON SC

INSTALL FOUNDATION VENTS

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

5 JOBS REPORTED

S323 3 sssxsssassscsx xsxsaa3s;s«ss:xxx£cxc:xx2sxs=:s3ss:3r s si * s s SUMMARY STATISTICS

sssajBssassxrs-sxsxxcxs-saBKaBS axx'axasssssccussssssssssasxzxx 3XS33

MIN MAX MEAN ME D I AN

J03 SIZEtSF J 3.0 A.

3.5 3.0

LABOR! t/SF

3.750 6 . 667 5. 306 5.000

MATERIAL! t/SF J A. 000 A. 000 A. 000 A. 000

OVERHEAD! WSF ) 0.996 2.392 1.850 1.9A3

TOTAL! S/SF

9. AAO 12.963 LI. 156 10.603

TOTAL COST STATIS TICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

IE AN! t/SF

* 10.951 STO OF V ! i / S F } 1. 392

CHARLESTON SC

INSULATE CRAWL SPACE WITH STYROFOAM

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

LI JOBS REPORTED

SUMMARY STAT ISTICS

3S2333S33XS2SSSSaXS S3SX S 32 3 3 £ S S 22 £2 22 S SS S S 3 2 3 S3 3 2ZX X 3 SS SSSSS

MIN MAX ME AN ME D I AN

JOS SIZECSF) 170.0 356.0 262.

272.0

LABOR ! $ /SF0.553 2.A59 1.135 0.899

MATERIA! ( M/ SF » 0. 75Q 1.C63 0.876 0.825

OVERHEAD!* /SF 1 1 . 0 f, . .<tOi 0.266 0. 29A

TOTAL! WSF 1

/

• ' • *6

2.278 2. 1 19

TOTAL r r

• i , f a i

i ,

i

! L * 1 OHT t ') Mr ;. n SIZE

1

c A N i i / j H t * 2.205 > TP DEV ( i / Sr ) 0. A9A

X 2 3 i A 7. 3 — ar « * x s a. ac *
CHARLESTON SC

INSULATE FLOOR JOISTS WITH FIBERGLASS BATTS

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

5 JOBS REPORTED

SUMMART STATISTICS

MIN MAX HE AN MEDIAN

JOB SIZE(SF) 70 A. 0 1184.0 975.2 1020.0

LABOR! S/SF ) 0.067 o.oeo 0.072 0. 071

MATERIAL! S/SF) 0.113 0.161 0.133 0. 127

0 YE RHE AO ( S/SF ) 0.039 0.061 0.050 0. 050

TOTAL! S/SF

)

0.223 0.283 0.255 0.248

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED 3T JOB SIZE

HE AN < S/S F ) * 0.255 STD LEV! 1 /SF) = 0.024

42
C JLOR ADO SPRINGS CO

INSTALL STORH WINDOWS

WORK DONE UNOER CONTRACT

16 JOBS REPORTEO

SUMMARY STATISTICS

NIN MAX MEAN ME D I AN

JOB SIZE ISF ) 4.0 150.4 58.1 52 .0

LABOR! S/SF > 0.155 1.125 0.404 0. 351

MATERIAL! t/SF J 1.150 3.019 2.068 2 . 050

OVERNEAO!S/SF^ 0.000 C.86 1 0.129 0 .000

totalii/sf > 1.932 3 • 3t>5 2.601 L * 546

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOb SIZE

MEAN! t/SF ) * 2.552 STE DEV! i/SF) 0 a 316

aS3S'S3SSS3=SSSSK 3XVS333J

3 OVE RHE AD AND PROFIT WERE

X X X 3 BSC2 XXX S3

NOT REPORTED

XXX xxxx X XXX X X 3 X X X X X X X X FOR ALL THESE HOUSES

COLORADO SPRINGS CO

INSTALL TRIPLE GLAZING

W3RK 00 NE IN-HOUSE

7 JOBS REPORTED

S S23X zaxx zs 3 s x * x S3Z2S3Z3SSX3SSZS

SSXXSSS3Z2ZSXZZSSZSSS3ZZ: 33SXCS222Z22

SUMMARY STATISTICS

XXXXXXXX 322 3 X X 3XXXXXXX333X33X333 3X33 X

XXXXX3XXX

X X 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

NIN NAX MEAN ME 0 I AN

JOB S I ZE ! S F ) 2.

A

11.7 6.9 5.8

LABOR! S/SF ) 0.497 2.000 1.058 0. 820

MATERIAL! t/SF ) 0.680 1.625 1.401 1.495

OVERHE AD!WSF ) 0.113 0.550 G.282 0.296

TOTAL! t/SF ) 1.613 4.071 2 . 742 2. 35 j

total COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

MEAN! i/SF ) * 2.493 STC oE VC i/SF

)

U . 75 L 3**XXXXX3XXXX33333X3XX*X-3XX33XX3X3XXX33SX3X3333XX3333333XXX3X3

43
cjlorado SPRINGS CO

INSULATE 8ASFME NT HALLS WITH FIBERGLASS BATTS

W3RK DONE UNDFR CONTRACT

3 JOBS REPORTED

z a zz a a 2 z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzacz a a a zsszzzazzzzzzzzzzazz azazzzazz a a a a SUMMARY STATISTICS

2 233222 XX 2 2 Z XI 32 X XXXS2XX2322 aaxzxxxzzx zxzzszzzzz zzazz z a z z a s z

MIN MAX MEAN MED I AN

JOB SIZE(SF) 290.0 500.0 379.0 3A2.0

LABOR! S/SF ) 0.257 0.879 0. A9A 0 • A A l MATERIAL! t/SF ) 0.271 0.658 0 • A 3 6 0. A21

OVERHE AD!t/SF

)

0.799 1.660 1 .057 0. 929

TOTAL! S/SF

)

1.A57 2.A27 1 .98 7 1 . S60

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED PY JOB SIZE

MEAN! S/SF ) * 1.9A6 STD DEVti/SF) 0. 36b

xzxxxaxzzx z z zz z XXX 2XXX222X zz zxssxxxzx zzzzzzszzz zzzzz =======

COLORADO SPRINGS CO

INSULATE FLOOR JOISTS WITH FIBERGLASS BATTS

W3RK DONE UNDER CONTRACT

A JOBS REPORTED

aaaa aaazzzzzzzazzxzzzzza zzzxxxxzaxxxxxxzxzzzzzzzxxzzzzz aasaa

SUMMARY STATISTICS

MIN MAX MIAN ME 0 I AN

JOi SIZEISF) A60.0 1000.0 7 70 . A 811.0

LA 30R! S/SF ) 0. UA 0 . A 1 3 0. 2A2 0.219

MATERI AL ! S/SF ) 0.182 0.269 0.225 0. 22A

0/tR"lEAD(S/SE ) 0.029 0.2A2 0 . L i 3 0.090

TOT AL ( S/SF ) 0.3A6 0.925 0.579 U • 5 2 A

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHED B T JOB SIZE

MEAn< S/SF ) 0.519 STl DEV(i/ShJ 0. 207
COLORADO SPRINGS CO

INSULATE WALLS WITH CELLULOSE

WORK DONE UNDER CONTRACT

6 J08S REPORTED

SUMMARY STATISTICS

MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOB SIZE(SF) A 5 0 • 0 1 L20.0 869.2 920.0

LAb OR* t/SF ) 0.0A6 C.150 0.078 0. 068

MATERIAL* S/SF ) 0.0 70 0.159 0 • Ob 7 U. 073

OVERHEAD* t/SF

»

0. 32A 0.51b 0. A70 0 . A 96

TOTAL* t/SF 1 0.633 0.6A1 0.636 0.635

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOb SIZE

MEAN*t/SF) * 0.636 STD OFV*b/SF) = 0.002

COLORADO SPRINGS CO

INSULATE WALLS WITH OF FOAM

WORK DONE UNDER CONTRACT

LO JOBS REPORTED

SON MARY STATISTICS

333 333 3333 SSSS1C3333333S 33 3333333333X333 333 3 333 33333 3 3 3 3 3 33

MIN MAX iF AN ME 01 AN

JOB S I Z E * SF ) 650.0 1186.0 9 rj 2 .

7

871.5

LABOR* t/SF ) 0.036 0.1c 3 0.05 5 0 . 0A5

MATERI AL* t/SF > 0.103 0 • 1 7 A 0.12 L 0.109

OVERHc AO* l /SF t 0.390 0.526 0 . A 3 7 0 . A 3 3 TOTAL (t/SF ) 0.685 0.736 0.613 0.589

TOTAL CCS T STATISTICS WMGHTEO BY JOB SIZE

MEAN* t/SF > * 0.610 STD DF V ( > / S F

)

0 • 0 A A 3x33333 33333333333333333333 33333333333333333333

45
EASTON PA

INSTALL TRIPLE GLAZING

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

7 JOBS REPORTED

XX33XX333X333333XX3333333333X Ii:2X== 3333

SUMMARY STATISTICS

33333X33 3333333333333 333333333333333 3333

JOB SIZEISF)

LAB JR! i/SF

)

MATERI AL! t/SF

OVERHEAD Ct/SF

)

TOTAL! S/SF

)

WIN MAX

2.0 15.9

0.950 4.189

0.960 4.695

0.128 1.528

2.329 10.412

IE AN fit 0 I AN

7.7 5.7

1.866 1. 241

2 .529 2 . 2 7 o 0.514 0. 450

4.909 3.670

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOb SIZE

iE AN ! S/S F ) * A. 342 STD LEVIS/SF) = 2 .

76

3333333333333333333333333X333333333333333333333 33333333 33333

EASTON PA

INSULATE WALLS WITH FIBERGLASS

WORK DONE UNDER CONTRACT

7 JOBS REPORTED

X X 3 X 3 X 3 3 S 33 3333333333333X33 33X33333333333333333 3333333333333

SUMMARY STATISTICS

3333X3333333333333333333X333333X3333333X3333333X333X33333X33

WIN H AX HE AN ME D I AN

JOB SI ZE!SF) 150.0 2350.0 1612.9 1800.0

LABOR! S/SF

)

0.111 0.272 0.174 U • 184

MATERI AL!S/SF) 0.160 0. 16 0 0. 16 0 0.1 60

OVERHEAD ! S/SF

)

0.141 0.534 0. 247 0. 232

TOTAL! S/SF ) 0.412 C • 96 t 0.58 1 0.579

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOb SIZE

IE AN! S/SF

)

0.52 L STr DEVIWSF) 0. 0 89
FARGO ND

INSTALL TRIPLE GLAZING

fJKK DONE UNQEP CONTRACT

13 J08S REPOPTEO

SUMMARY STATISTICS

PIN PAX MEAN ME 0 I AN

JU3 SIZECSF) fcO.O 190.0 114.3 96.0

LABOR! i/SF ) 0.3U1 0.745 0.477 0.471

NATERIAL!i/SF ) 0.135 0.576 0.510 0.528

OVERHEAD! t/SF

)

0.423 1.110 0.769 0. 738

TOTAL! i/SF

)

1.015 2.302 1.757 1. 720

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

MEAN! i/SF ) * 1.754 STD DEVIi/SF) 0. 275

2 2 2 2 2 3333322332 222222222222 3

FARGO NO

INSULATE BASEMENT HALLS

WORK DONE UNDER CONTRACT

7 JOBS REPORTED

WITH UF F CAN

2232 22 322222 222

2 2 2 2 3222 3 2 2 3 3 3 2

2222 22222 222 2 22 22222 2 22222222222 22322

SUN NARY STATISTICS

222222222 223222 22222222222222 22222222 2322 2222 22

PIN PAX DEAN ME 0 I AN

JG3 SIZE(SF) 407.0 504. C 4? 7 • b 4b0 • 0

LABOR! i/SF

)

0.115 0.21ft 0.180 0. 197

MATERIAL!i/SF

)

0.272 0.336 0.303 0. 304

OVERHEAD! WSF ) C.003 0.329 0.134 0. 132

TOTAL! l/SF ) 0.4&5 G.630 0.617 0.581

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED Br JOB SIZE

MEAN! i/SF ) * 0. t»l5 STD DF V ( i / S F ) 0.0 97

222222222223222 2222 222222222 223222222 2 2 2 333232333332 2222222333

47
FARGO NO

INSULATE HALLS WITH UF FOAM

WORK OONE UNDER CONTRACT

12 JOBS REPORTED

SUMMARY STATISTICS

m 3 3 3 2 : S 3 X S3 = 3S333323CK3ES X*tx2 3 Z = S S3S3333ZS3S^3 SS3S

MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOB SIZEISF1 240.0 1040.0 82 1.1 856.0

LA30RIWSF ) 0.132 0.245 0.171 0. 152

MATcRIALIl/SF) 0.133 0.256 0 • lt»6 0.152

Q YERHEADI l /SF

)

0.125 0.301 0.197 0. 194

TQTALCt/SF0.448 0.61b 0.534 0.543

total COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED 3 Y JOB SIZE

MEAN! l/SF

- 0.530 STD DE Vll/SF) 0. 049

48
MINEAPOLIS/ST PAUL MN

INSULATE RIM JOISTS WITH FI8FRCLASS BATTS

WORK DONE UNDER CONTRACT

17 JOBS REPORTED

ass S SS SZZZS3S ss 333333333332332

*2322333

KX X SXSC3

3332223*23=22333 3 3

SUMMARY STATISTICS

= 33 23=32*3332*3333 = = = = = = = = = ========

MIN MAX MEAN Mb 0 I AN

JOB SIZE(LF) 32.0 257.0 38

.

4 30 .

0

LABOR ( S/LF ) 0.163 C. 800 0.439 0.437

MATERIAL ($/LF) 0.412 0.499 0.426 0.420

OVERHEAD! S/LF ) 0.148 1.271 0.528 0.501

TOTAL! S/LF ) 0.732 2.26 1 L . 392 1 .271

TOTAL COST STATISTICS RE I GET EO By JOB SUE

•IE AN ! t/LF ) * 1.265 STD DFVU/LF) = 0.423

MINEAPOLIS/ST PAUL MN

INSULATE WALLS WITH OF FOAM

WORK OONE UNCER CONTRACT

17 JOBS REPORTED

SUMMARY STATISTICS

MIN MAX mean ME 0 IAN

JO 3 SIZFISF) 96 7.0 2 4 4 E .0 139 5.

a

107c.

0

LABOR! S/SF ) 0.168 0.44 9 0.320 0 . 324

MATE RI AL ! 3 /SF ) 0. 180 0.65E 0. 29 4 0.238

OVERHEAD! l/SF ) 0. 128 0.796 0.330 0 . 2w^

TOTAL! S/SF » 0.585 1.608 0.944 0.830

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED 6Y JOb SIZ t MEAN! l/SF ) = 0.917 STD DFVIi/SF) 0. 2 3o :=============== =23**333 333 = = == = = == = = 33333333333333 3333 332333-

49
PORTLAND ME

INSULATE BASEMENT WALLS WITH CELLULOSE

WORK DONE UNDER CONTRACT

10 JOBS REPORTEO

ssaaxaassasaaz

saa as as 32222222

SUMMARY S TAT I

S323aSXZa22S 33353222X33

ZZZZZZZZZ Z X 3 X X

TICS

XX XXX 3323 Z 3 Z Z S

z zz z z 323 ;

3X2 Z Z ZZ

MIN MAX MEAN MED IAN

JOB SIZE(SF) 46 3 • 0 1156.0 758.9 742.0

LABOR! S/SF

0.149 0.321 0. 198 0.179

MATERI ALIS/SF) 0.181 0.420 0. 343 0. 344

OVERHEAD!S/SF ) 0.025 0.359 0.159 0. 149

TOTAL! S/SF 1 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED 9Y JOb SIZE

MEAN! S/SF) « 0.700 STD DEVU/SF) 0.000

3323X222222 22X2 SJC 22X2X23 3233 ZZZ*«Z«ZZZ zzzzzzzzzzsszz ~ = * = = = ~

PORTLAND ME

INSULATE WALLS WITH CELLULOSE

WORK DONE UNDER CONTRACT

10 JOBS REPORTED

332333323152232

333a 223 3222 3332

S2SS X XXX 3X3 3 3 3 22 3332X2 23 2 323 5 2X3 2 C 22 3

SUMMARY STATISTICS

32X2X3 323353332322X5X2233 22 52535 3 Z53 S

z z z z z z z

5 XX X 3 ZZ

MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOB SIZEISF) 1570.0 3400.

2357.0 2200.0

LABOR! S/SF ) 0.015 0.091 0.044 0.032

MATERI ALl S/SF

0.014 O.OBH 0.052 0.048

OVERHEAD! S/SF ) 0.027 0.168 J . 1 L 6 0 . 12 L TOTAL! S/SF ) 0.119 0.275 0. 21 1 0.222

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED B f JOB SIZE

MEAN! S/SF ) * 0.212 STD -tVU/SF) 0 . 040

a 2 as a 2 a x 3 2 z xa as sssx zsaxaaa a X * a z ' x x x c : * z x: i.*zzzzzz x s s u Z 3 Z = 3 S Z

30
PORTLAND ME

INSULATE WALLS WITH CELLULOSE

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

5 JOBS REPORTED

SUMMARY STAT ISTICS

MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOB SIZEISF) 778.0 1560.0 1113.2 909.0

LABOR ( t/SF

0.051 0.101 0.066 0.058

MATERIAL (t /SF

0.065 0.135 0.09 3 0.0 89

OV£RH£AD(t/SF) 0.011 0.090 0.032 0.020

TOTAL* i/SF > 0.137 0.231 0. 191 0.219

TOTAL COST STATIST ICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

MEAN < $/SF ) « 0.190 STD DEVti/SF) 0. 053
st louis ho

INST ALL STCRH NI NDOW

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

15 JOBS REPORTED

SUMHARY STATISTICS

aaa aaaxaaazxaa sssaissssaasaas axxxxsscx xssaaazxBX xasx =ZBS 3 S S3 3 3

PIN H AX HEAN HE 0 IAN

JOB S I ZE I SF ) i6.fi 289. A 120.6 106.0

LABOR I S/SF ) 0.197 0.913 0. 50 A 0.521

HATE RIAL! i/SF ) 1.563 2.690 2.014 2.034

OYER HE ADI $/SF) 0.003 0.00 0 0.000 0.000

TOT AL I S/SF ) 1.922 3.531 2.518 2 .531

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

NEANI S/SF ) « 2.432 STD LEV (i/SF) 0. 40t>

isa saaszaasaiszBSX izsca^a 3 a a

a OVERHEAD AND TRAVEL COSTS

*33333333

WERE NOT

as -3 S3 S3 3S S3S3 S

REPORTED FOR

3 33 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

ALL THESE HOUSES
TACOMA HA

I MS T ALL STORM WINDOWS

WORK DONE UNDER CONTRACT

) JOBS REPORTED

SUMMARY STATISTICS

MIN MAX MEAN MED IAN

JOB SIZEISF) 31.0 222.0 132.1 139.4

LABOR 1 t/SF ) 0.324 1.076 0.759 0.809

MATERIAL! t/SF) 1.259 3.861 2.239 1.392

OVERHEAD! t/SF ) 0.069 1.729 0.830 1 . 056

TOTAL! t/SF » 3.404 4.951 3.823 3.685

TOTAL

MEAN! t/SF >

COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

« 3.711 STD GEVli/SFI 0.2 3b

3 2 sax a sxx ssasas mmmmm mm mm xaxs XSXBBSXBS XXXBX2XXXXCXX23 CSX M 9 MX ;

TACOMA WA

INSULATE BASEMENT WALLS

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

10 JOBS REPORTED

WITH UF FOAM

xxxa xxxbxsbxbsbs

a x a» a SB a xr at at xxa xsssx

SSBaBBBaat aiXIXBBXSXBXXCXXX SSSS BBSS

SUMMARY STATISTICS

SBsaBSSBSxaasflSasasBSiiss«x«sxsx ssxz

X XXX X XXX

X X XC M 9 SES

MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOB SIZEISF) 62.5 266.0 163.1 167.0

LABOR! t/SF > 0.057 0.564 0.179 0.031

MATE RI AL ! t /SF

0.087 0.651 0.253 0. 112

OVE RUE AD! t / SF

0.004 0.148 0.057 0.035

TOTAL! t/SF ) 0.175 1.244 0.489 0.245

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

NEAN!t/SF> - 0.413 STD GFVU/SF) « 0.377

53
TACOMA HA

INSULATE CRAWL SPACE WITH STYROFOAM

WORK DONE IN—HOUSE

8 JOBS REPORTED

i-3S.a*»ai*aB*«*;******3i5s*56 ; SUMMARY STATISTICS

ia 3 a x laaxfsxxaaasxax: . is at as » = a * as xssaass

MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOT SIZFISFI 125.0 500.0 305.4 3 10.0

LABOR! t/SF » 0.236 1.289 0.64 3 0.671

MATE RIAL! t/SF

)

0,398 1,015 0.606 0.592

QYc RNEAO! t/SF

0.018 0.294 0.09 3 0.056

TOTAL! i/SF 1 0.655 2.070 1.34 3 1 . 363

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

MEAN! t/SF

* 1.189 STD DEVU/SF) 0 .410

laasaaaaassxaxs ssssssssaaxsa szsssaasssss saazzss xazss ae x x 3 x x s

TACOMA WA

INSULATE WALLS WITH CELLULOSE

WORK DONE UNDER CONTRACT

4 JOBS REPORTED

laaaaaaassssasa assssssaaaaa aaassairs ssssz iszsszsssass

SUMMARY STATISTICS

x x x s sax,

MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOB S I ZE I SF ) 803.0 1418.0 1028.3 946.0

LABOR! t/SF > 0.116 0.2C7 0.15 3 0.145

MATERIAL !t/SF) 0.110 0.164 0.133 0. 128

OVE RrtE AD ( t / SF ) 0.041 0.084 0.071 0.080

TOTAL! t/SF 1 0.357 0.357 0.357 0.357

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

MS AN ( t/SF ) - 0.357 STD DEVU/SF) = 0.000

: as asasssi

54
WASHINGTON DC

INSTALL STORM WINOOWS

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

10 JOBS REPORTED

SUNN ARY STATISTICS

MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOtJ SIZEISF) 26.9 303.1 172.4 169.4

LA BORIS/ SF) 0.403 0.793 0.562 0.565

NATERIALIS/SFI 1.20? 2.374 1.793 1.789

OVERHE AO ( S / SF 1 0.051 1.258 0.364 0.233

TOTALIS/SF ) 1.903

•»* 3.536 2.719 2. 721

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

MEAN! S/SF) * 2.519 STO DEVI l/SFI 0.4 35

a 3 = a x aaxxxaxxxsik * *ac ssaxax ;s -x asssxassstiC S SS33 3 X X X 3X33 X 333 3XXX3 X3

WASHINGTON DC

INSULATE FLOOR JOISTS

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

5 JOBS REPORTED

WITH FIBERGLASS BATTS

i

• .• :

' •

SUMMARY STATISTICS

MIN MAX MEAN MED IAN

JOB SIZEISF) 140.0 1128.0 655.2 680.0

LABOR! S/SF ) 0.064 0.196 0. 127 0. 136

MATERIAL! S/SF

)

0.170 0.370 0.271 0 .288

OVERHEADtl/SF >

') • *

>' 0.043 0.263 0.101 0.061

TOTAL! S/SF ) 0.369

: J. • 0.639 0.600 0.500

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

ISAM! S/SF

)

« 0.476 STD LEV(WSF) 0.062

x S3ax a aa cxaaaxx stixatxsxi * » ai * xsxxxxxs XX1SXS33 33 3 T 33 « x as ssasss s

55
WASHINGTON DC

INSULATE WALLS WITH CELLULOSE

WORK OONE IN-HOUSE

4 J 08 S REPORTED

SUMMARY STATISTICS

aaaaasaassssssximMMMMMMMMMMM 33S3SSS3SSS iim MS M M MM 33 S3 !

MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOB SIZE(SF) 1120.0 2490.0 1539.1274.0

LABOR! t/SF

)

0.123 0.273 0.217 0.237

MATE RI AL ( t/SF

)

0.068 0.113 0.082 0.074

0 Vt RHE AD ! i/ SF

)

0.024 0.113 0.062 0.055

TOTAL! i/SF » 0.259 0.405 0.361 0. 391

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY JOB SIZE

MEAN! t/SF ) * 0.340 STD DFVIi/SF) * 0.067

XXS33S33S33SS3S XCSX3SS33 333 M MM MM MM MM MM MM MM M M MM M M 3SS3S33 MM MM'.

WASHINGTON DC

INSULATE WALLS WITH UF FOAN

WORK DONE UNDER CONTRACT

5 JOBS REPORTED

MM MM 33333333 333

31 3 33 33333SS3S3S

33SS33333333S33S3S3333S3333Z3S333

SUMMARY STATISTICS

SSS33SS33S3333333SS33BSSS333S3S3S

MMMMMMMMMMM

3 3 3 3 3 X S 3 3X3

MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOB SIZEISFI 960.0 2160.0 1504.8 1620.0

LABOR! 1/ SF 1 0.135 0.172 0.151 0. 155

MATER I AL < S /SF ) 0.252 0.637 0.416 0.332

OVERHEAOU/SF ) 0.092 0 .26 1 0.142 0 .258

TOTAL! t/SF 1 0.700 0.746 0.710 0. 700

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTEO BY JOB SIZE

MEAN! t/SF ) - 0.710 STD DEV! t/SF ) = 0.020

56
4.2.2 Attic Insulation

In this subsection the summary statistics described in subsection 3.2 are presented for attic insulation. The same criterion for inclusion applies as for non-attic options: both labor and materials cost data must have been

reported for at least four dwellings for a particular option-site combination.

As noted above, the attic unit cost data are denominated in terms of cost per

square foot per R-value added. The symbol, R, used in these tables refers

to the R-value added to the attic. In all other respects these tables are

to be read in the same way as those for non-attic options in the previous

subsections

.

57
ALBUQUERQUE NM

INSULATE ATTIC WITH FIBERGLASS

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

5 JOBS REPORTED

SUMMARY STATISTICS

2233 322222222222 22 22222 32

MIN

2332222222 22

MAX

22223 3222 2222 2

MEAN MEDIAN

JOB SIZEISF) IS 4*5 3680.0 2057.7 2132.0

R-YALUE ADDED 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0

LA30RI 1/R* S F

O.OOL 0.006 0.002 0.001

MATERIAL! t/P*SF ) 0.C05 0.017 0.008 0.006

OVERHEAD !l/R*SF ) o.ooo

a 0.001 0.000 0.000

TOTAL! S /R* SF

0.006 0.02 4 0.011 0.007

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED PY R-VALUE * JOB SIZE

MEAM!i/R*SF> * 0.007 STD DEV($/R«SF) = 0 .003

3 2 3 2 3 :3XZ7ZSZ3£XXZSZ£X2a 3 3 2 X 3 3 2 2 X 3 3 XX33333X 3 2X3 3323 X X 2 3 3232 332

3

THE ZERO OVERHEAD COST IS DUE TO ROUNDING

5 «
ATLANTA GA

INSULATE ATTIC WITH ROCK WOOL

WORK DONE UNDER CONTRACT

9 JOBS REFOPTEO

SUNHARY STATISTICS

MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOB SIZECSF) BA 1.0 1350.0 1125.6 1122.0

R-VALUE ADDED 19.3 23.5 19. a 19.3

LABOR ( i/RASF

0.002 0.003 0.002 0.002

MATERIALH/RASF ) 0.006 0.010 0.006 0.006

OVERHEADI$/R*SF

0.002 0. 00 A 0.003 0.003

TOT AL ( S/R*SF I 0.011 0.016 0.012 0.011

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY R-VALUF JOB SIZE

MEAN! t/R*S F ) = 0.012 STD DEV<t/R*SF) = 0.002

CHARLESTON SC

INSULATE ATTIC WITH CELLULOSE

WORK OONE IN-HOUSE

17 JOBS REPORTED

t m mm m aa« * mm ssasst csstaai

SUMMARY STATISTICS

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmm sasasi

MIN MAX MEAN MED I AN

JOB SIZE(SF) 675.0 1890.0 1107.1 1088.0

R— VALUE ADDED 8.9 26.6 17.

18.1

LABOR ( S/RASF

)

0.003 0.006 0.005 0.005

MAT ERlALCS/RASF

)

0.005 0.006 0.005 0.005

OVcRHEAOCS/R*SF

)

0.001 O.OOA 0.003 0.002

TOTAL C S/R* SF ) 0.010 0.015 0.013 0.013

TOTAL COST STATISTI

>

• i CS WEIGHTED BY R -VALUE JOB SIZE

MEAN(S/R*SF> * 0.012 STD DEV ( l /R* SF 1 » 0 .001

3 COS TS INCLUDE WEATHERSTRIPPING ATTIC HATCH

59
COLORADO SPRINGS CO

INSULATE ATTIC WITH CELLULOSE

WORK OOHF UNDFP CONTRACT

l* JOBS REPORTED

SUMMAPY STATISTICS

MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOB SI/ECSF ) 238.0 1075.0 739.7 800.0

R-YALUE ADDED 4.6 48.9 16.9 14.5

LABOR ( WP*SF 1 O.COl 0.00 A 0.002 0.001

MATERIAL f%/P*SF ) 0.005 0.008 0.007 0.007

UYERHE ADTl/RPSE 1 0.008 0.035 0.010 0.009

TOTAL! 1/P*SF » 0.015 0.046 0.019 0.017

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY R-VALUE JOB SIZE

MEANIWRPSF) - 0.018 STD OEVU/P*SF) - 0 .006

E AS TOM PA

INSULATE ATTIC WITH CELLULQSF

WORK DOME IN-HOUSE

9 JOBS REPOPTEO

SUMMARY STATISTICS

MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOB SI ZE l$F> 400.0 1500.0 748.1 650.0

R-YALUf ADDED 10.4 18.6 14.1 14.0

LABOR ( t/P*SF 1 0.003 0.013 0.006 0.004

MATERIAL TS/RPSE > 0.003 0.012 0.006 0.006

OVERHE AOTt/RASF ) 0.000° 0.019 0.004 0.002

TOTAL < l / P S F

0.007 0. 04 A 0.0 16 0.014

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED eY R-VALUE JOB SI ZE

MEANT t/R*S» ) - 0 .014 STD DFVT1/R*SF ) - 0 .010

n TH V. V. KKO OVKRBEAD COST IS DUE TO I^JNDING
FARGO NO

INSULATE ATTIC WITH CELLULOSE

WORK 00 NE UNDER CONTRACT

12 JOBS REPORTEO

SUNNARY STATISTICS

NIN MAX NE AN MEDIAN

JOB SIZECSFI 306.0 1036.0 700.0 709.6

R-VALUE ADDED 3.1 21.0 10.6 9.6

LABOR ( 6/R6SF ) 0.00* 0.016 0.009 0.008

NATERIAL(S/R*SF ) 0.007 0.008 0.008 0.00 7 OVERHEAD! »/R#SF 1 0.006 0.020 O.Oll 0.01 l TQTAL(S/R*SFI 0.019 0.060 0.028 0.02 7

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED PY R-VALUE JOB SIZE

NE AN ! i /R*S F 1 - 0.026 STD OE V ( t/R* SF I - 0 .006

-1INC APCLI S/ST HAUL IN

INSULATE ATTIC WITH CELLULUSI

WORK DGNF UNDER CONTRACT

12 jriRS PFPOPTFD

S UNH A R Y STATISTICS

MIN MA> W F AN Nt 0 I AN

JOB >1ZF(SF) *60.0 L 09 2 • 0 918.9 9 1 6.6

R-/ALUE AO OF D 9.7 3( .9 2 0 .

6

2 0.6

LABOR! ) 0.0 06 0.0< ( (1.00 1 0 • J 0 K NATERlALCl/R^Sf ) 0.00*1 t .0(10 ' . 0 ‘i v). OOH

3 V..: R 1 E A D ( 1 / P * S F ) 0.00

I

r . o 2 6

,v . i i 0. JU8

TOTAL ( t/P» SP ) c . o r» n . o 2 s 0.^22

TOTAL COST STAT I STI cs W c IGF T{ 0 f’Y R -VALUE 0 JOH SI /F

W6AN(WR*S-F) - 0.023 STI L F V (

!

/ R * 9 F ) • o .008

m m a 9 = = rr=iE 3 =«i«c*«:i*K«A» i»aa««ae*Aa»»««iKia s Basils > 1 A « k

61
OAKLAND CA

INSULATE ATTIC WITH CELLULOSE

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

6 JOBS REPORTED

i a X X X 3X x XXXX X X3s X

axaxxxxasxsxszxx

mm m mm mm

mmm mm mm SUMMARY STATISTICS

mmm mm mmm mmm m mm mm mm

a m mmm x

mm

mm m mm a mmm

ssss mm mm mm

mm mm mmmmm m

MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOB SIZE(SF) *20.0 1210.

6 31.9 875.0

R-VALUE ADDED 5.* 20.7 13.9 1 * • 3 LABOR! t/R*SF

)

0.002 0.007 0.00* 0.00 3 MATER IAL!S/R*SF

0.005 0.010 0.008 0.008

OVERHEADfS/R*SF) 0.000 a 0.007 0.002 0.001

TOTAL! t/R*SFI 0.009 0.023 0.01* 0.012

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY R-VALUE * JOB SIZE

MEAN(i/R*SF) » 0.012 STD DEV!S/R*SF) * 0.00*

THE ZERO OVERHEAD COST IS DUE TO ROUNDING

PORTLAND ME

INSULATE ATTIC WITH CELLULOSE

WORK DONE UNDER CONTRACT

10 JOBS REPORTED

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm

mmmmmmmmmm mmnmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmm

SUMMARY STATISTICS

mm mmmmmmmm m mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmM m m mm

mmm m mmm m m

mmm mmmm m S'

MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN

J08 SIZE(SF) 65 0.0 1650.0 10*0.6 1050.0

R-VALUE ADDED 7.3 30.3 15.1 1 * • 2 LABOR! t/R* SF } 0.001 0.00* 0.002 0.002

NATERIAL<1/R*SF ) 0.006 0.007 0.006 0.006

0VtRHEA0!WR*SF ) 0.001 0.023 0.011 0.011

T0TAL($/R*SF) 0.009 0.031 0.020 0.021

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY R-VALUE * JOB SIZE

MEAN! */R*SF ) * 0.018 STD OFVlt/RASF) » 0 .006

a * a x axsxsxzsxxzxxxxzsa x 3 2 & xz sc a a a a a a a a 3X3 z zx

62
PJRTLANO ME

INSULATE ATTIC WITH CELLULOSE

WORK DONE IN-HOUSE

5 JOBS REPORTED

SUMMARY STATISTICS

HIN HAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOB SIZEISFI 660.0 1156.0 965.2 1000.0

R-VALUE ADDED 1A.3 25.3 19.6 19.

a

LABOR I S/R*SF I 0.002 0. 00 A 0.00 3 0.003

MATE RIAL CS/RRSFI 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007

OVERHEADIS/R*SF I a 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.001

TOT AL l S/R* SF I 0.010 0.012 0.011 0.012

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY R-VALUE JOB SIZE

ME AN( i/R*S F I * 0.011 STD DEV(S/R*5F> - 0. 00 1

s ss a * s sssacsssssxxssxsxsxsssaasx ss xxxss s : OVERHEAD AND TRAVEL COSTS WERE NOT REPORTED FOR ALL THESE HOUSES

ST LOUIS HO

INSULATE ATTIC WITH CELLULOSE

WORK DONE UNDER CONTRACT

13 JOBS REPORTED

SUMMARY STATISTICS

HIN HAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOB SIZEISFI 600.0 1600.0 976.6 1000.0

R-VALUE AODED 21.1 A3.

9

32.5 33.7

LABOR ( S/P* SF

1

0 . 000 a 0.019 0.009 0.009

MArERIAL(S/R*SF

I

0.006 o.ooe 0.008 0.00 7

OVE RHE AD IS /R *S F I 0.003 0.012 0.007 0. )07

TOTAL(S/P*SF) 0.011 0.031 0.02A 0.026

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY R-VALUE J3b SIZE

MEAN(S/R*SF> * G.02A STD OEV(S/R*SF> * 0.006

the zero labor cost is due to rounding

63
TACOMA HA

INSULATE ATTIC WITH ROCK WOOL

WORK DONE UNDER CONTRACT

II JOBS REPORTED

SUMMARY STATISTICS

MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN

JOB SIZE(SF) 540.0 1648.0 1014.9 980.0

R-VALUE ADDED 13,1 41.0 27.8 29.0

LABOR ( t/R* SF ) 0.000

a 0.002 0.001 0.000

HAT£RIAL(*/R*SF) 0,004 0.006 0.005 0.005

QVE RHEADC %/R*SF ) 0.005 0.018 0.007 0.005

TOTAL ( t/R*SF

0.009 C.022 0.013 0.012

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY R— VALUE * JOB SIZE

MEAN! S/R4SF I * 0.012 STD DEV ($ /R* SF ) * 0. 002

aaaasassaasaasxx mmm mm. a a a a a a as aasxaasa aa a a xxxasxxa a* sc ssasasaa

l THE ZERO LABOR COST IS DUE TO ROUNDING

WASHINGTON DC

INSULATE ATTIC WITH CELLULOSE

WORK DONE I N—HOUSE

10 JOBS REPORTED

SUMMARY STATISTICS

a a a a aaa aasa azxa aa a a a x a a a a

MIN

aaaaaaaaaaaaaa

MAX

aaaaaaaaaaaa

MEAN

sax a xass s

MED I AN

JOB SIZE(SF) 300.0 1400.0 i 2 7.2 842.0

R-VALUE ADDED 20.5 32.1 26.5 2 3.6

LABOR! t/R*SF

0.003 0.006 O.005 0.005

MATERlAL<i/R*SF

)

0.006 0.020 0.008 0.006

OVERHEAD! $/R*SF

)

0.001 0.005 0.003 0.003

TOTAcI t/R*SF> 0.011 0.027 0.015 0.014

TOTAL COST STATISTICS WEIGHTED BY R-VALUE * JOS SIZE

MtAN(WR*SF) - 0,015 STD DEV<*/R*SF) * 0*005

64
4.3 WEATHERIZATION-RELATED REPAIR WORK

Table 4.1 presents cost data for the weatherization-related repair work

described in subsection 3.3. The dollar amounts in the body of the table

represent expenditures on each type of repair work for a particular city.

Most amounts refer to work on a single house, except as explained in the

footnote. The total column on the far right sums expenditures for each

type of repair work across all cities. The total row at the bottom sums expenditures for each city across all types of repair work.

4.4 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF WEATHERIZATION COST STATISTICS

Table 4.2 condenses the summary statistics presented in subsections 4.1 and

4.2 on the infiltration and conduction options by extracting the weighted

mean of unit total cost from each table (i.e., option-site combination). As

noted in subsection 4.2.2, however, the attic unit cost data are denominated

on a per square foot per R-value added basis. In order to make these data

comparable to the infiltration and non-attic conduction options, total cost

per square foot measures are presented based on the mean R-value added across

all sites, R-19. That is, the cost per square foot figures for attic insulation presented in table 4.2 are derived by extracting the weighted mean of

total cost per "R" added per square foot from each option-site table and

multiplying by 19.

65
Table

4.1

Expenditures

($)

for

Weatherization-Related

Repair

Work,

by

City

and

Type

of

Repair

Work

m VD r-H o ,-h »-h cn NO ON 00 co m

•—

"d- in i—

o ON

CO

CM ON

1—

MO CM

r-H CM

<rr-• • r- 00 o r-H vO NO

CM Mf ON

00 NO CM « • • CM 00 m CO ON o CN i-1

<r o

CO o • • G\

LO o r-H ON

r-H *—

CO NO m CM • • <rCO vD

r-H

»-H

CM NO r-H O r-H •-H • • • CM ON r-H NO <fr 1/0

r-H CNI

CO3ooQ ai6 ,3 3 cfl 3

<J a) 44 cfl 3 3 04 CO i—

3 3 a 4-1 „ 5 S 44

<u 0 O

O 3

04 3 14-t T3 no 4-1 3 o 3 3 4-* 3 4-1 o •H •H 3 o CO 04 13 O 3 3 3 44 44 44 •H •H •H •H •H •H 3 3 3 3 cfl cfl a a CL Cl CL Cl 3 3 0) <u 3 ai o4 04 04 04 oi 04

NO

m 00

r-H -d- CM

m • • NO CM CM 00

CO r-H

m

CM r-H i-H

r-H ON

Oio ai

cd a>

r—i >H CL 33 • 3 4-1 /-n '—' CO

0) o 4 U to CM 00 O < 3 • • H O

CM co 44

x r-H CO •H 3

r-H co Cfl *H

O

r-H CM

a s

CD n3 4-1 Pi 3 w3

CJ • • #N NO co 4-1 C-N f-4 r-H NO CL CO • • • a; ci 3

NO ON r-H

O to 'H

m CM

X 3

t-H NO ai o oo

r-H 33 3

0) -H 3 3 nfl 3 3 -H a o co

*4-4 >N N_^ M *H co 3 P4 3 • > O CL NO 3 CL 3

NO P3 o 3 3

co •H -H T33 3 - 3 3 4—

3 to •« O 3 ^~n 33 3 Cfl 3 3

CM »—

3 0 3

r- UO i—1 33 3 • • 00 O

CM 3 3 33

r~- •H 3

NO 3 > X

r-H 3 *H 3 3 3 3O ^ < < EE 3 O U

ON 3

CM 0 3 3 • 33 -r4 *H

CNJ NO -X - 33 4 CN 3 0 3 3

Cfl 4J 3 S 3 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 -H 3 3 IS CL -H 3 3 3 3 n_/ .h

44 3 O 3 <£ CL O 3 3 3 Q 3Ua! 3

nfl 00 3 •»

cfl •H «H

a) 00 <4-4 3

43 Cfl 3 cfl a) 34 0) •H 4-13 3 1 1 > nfl H 3 0 3 3 cfl •H < O O O

00

W cn

H o o -3 O

44 44 44

H

•H •H •H • *

cfl cfl cfl

w

Cl CL CL

H 3 01 aj O

04 04 04 Z Iii! lii

66
Table 4.2 Weighted Mean Total Cost of ] in Dollars per Lineal Foot < $ / 1 f

)

Installed Architectural

or Dollars per Square

Options, by city,

Foot (S/sf) a

City

Option Description Units ALB ATL CHA CSP EAS FAR MSP OAK POR STL TAC WAS

Infiltration Options

Replace Broken Glass ($/sf) 3.23 4.39 3.36 3.78 5.12 2.02 b

Reset Glazing ($/lf) 0.27 0.78 0.18 2.96 b

Replace Thresholds ($/lf) 4.60 1.89 2.27

Seal Structural Cracks ($/lf) 2.68 0.59

Caulk Windows and Doors ($/lf> 0.19 0.16 0.34 0.25 b 0.20

Weatherstrip Windows ($/lf) 0.57 0.43

Weatherstrip Doors ($/lf) 1.58 0.59 0.46 0.59 0.83 0,81 b U .64 1.56

Weatherstrip Windows

and Doors ($/lf) 0.51 1.16

Weatherstrip Attic Hatch ($/lf) 0.60 0.44 1.24 b

Conduction Options

Install Storm Windows ($/sf) 1.49

c 2.55 2.43 b 3.71 2.52

Install Triple Glazing ( $/ sf

)

2.59 2.49 4.34 1.75

Insulate Basement Walls

wich Cellulose ( $/sf

)

0.70

Insulate Basement Walls

with Fiberglass Batts ($/sf) 1.95

Insulate Basement Walls

with Urea-Formaldehyde ($/sf) 0.62 0.42

Install Foundation Vents ( $/ sf

)

10.95

Insulate Crawl Space with Styrofoam ($/sf) 2.21 1.19

Insulate Floor Joists with Fiberglass Batts ($/sf) 0.26 0.51 0.48

Insulate Rim Joists

with Fiberglass Batts ($/sf) 1.27

Insulate Walls with Cellulose ($/sf) 0.64 0 .21 d 0.36 0.34

Insulate Walls with Fiberglass ($/sf) 0.52

Insulate Walls with Urea-Formaldehyde ($/sf) 0.61 0.53 0.92 0.71

Insulate Attic with Cellulose

(R-value added=19) e ($/sf) 0.23

f 0.34 0.27 0.49 0.44 0.23 0.34

8 0.46 0.29

Insulate Attic with Fiberglass (R-value added=19) e ($/sf) 0.13

Insulate Attic with Rock

Wool (R-value added=19)e ($/sf) 0.23 0.23

a Cost data were collected between the following dates: ALB 6/78-3/79; ATL 10/78-12/78; CHA 2/79-6/79; CSP 1/79-11/79;

EAS 1/79-11/79; FAR 10/78-11/79; MSP 12/78-7/79; OAK 2/77-1/80; POR 2/78-5/79; STL 1/79-8/79; TAC 1/79-1/80; WAS 3/79-9/79.

b Overhead and travel costs were not reported for all these houses.

c Overhead and profit were not reported for all these houses.

^ The measure of 0.21 $/sf is for contracted wall insulation in Portland. A lower measure of 0.19 $/sf was found for in-house wall insulation work.

e The cost per square foot for adding R-19 attic insulation is derived by multiplying the cost per "R" added per square foot

by 19.

^ Cost includes weatherstripping attic hatch.

8 The measure of 0.34 $/sf is for contracted attic insulation in Portland. A lower measure of 0.21 $/sf was found for in-house attic insulation work. 67
Table 4.3 presents the attic cost data in a slightly different manner. It

gives the weighted mean of unit total cost based on actual R-values added

in each city, rather than assuming R-19 was added. Thus, for each city,

the cost per R added per square foot is multiplied by the mean R-value added

in that city to come up with the cost per square foot for attic insulation.

On tables 4.2 and 4.3 one can compare the unit cost of architectural options

across cities. In fact, there are 12 options that have reported costs from at

least three demonstration sites. For many of these options such comparisons

reveal a considerable degree of variation from city to city. Comparing the

unit cost of replacing broken glass in table 4.2, for example, reveals that it

varies by over two and one-half times between OAK and POR. Such significant

variation implies that estimates of the cost of installing various

architectural options may need to be based on estimating functions unique to

each city in order to assure accuracy.

A number of factors may contribute to the variation in unit cost across

cities. Regional differences in the costs of materials and labor constitute

an obvious probable cause. Another likely source of variation is cost

differences between contracted jobs and in-house jobs. Yet another is the

presence of economies of scale, such that the size of a specific job becomes a relatively important factor in determining that job's unit cost.

Alternatively, it could be that differences across cities in the architectural

designs of the demonstration dwellings cause the cost variation. For example,

if it is more difficult to gain access to the attics of houses in one city than

in another, such differences would be reflected in the corresponding costs

of insulating the attic. (Note that the architectural design of a dwelling

is distinct from its state of repair prior to weatherization. Differences in

the state of repair would be reflected in the costs of weatherization-related

repair work, presented in table 4.1).

A final possible source of variation in mean costs lies in the geographic

locations of the dwellings within each demonstration site. Location is a source of variation because both travel distance and traffic congestion affect

the travel component of option cost. For options installed by in-house labor,

variations in cost due to differences in geographic distribution are reflected

in the travel costs explicitly listed on the Dwelling Unit Cost Data Forms.

For jobs done under contract, on the other hand, since travel cost is implicitly incorporated in total bid price, cost differences due to this source are not so readily apparent. Nevertheless, this implicit travel component is

likely to vary from city to city.

The suggestions offered above as possible sources of intercity variation in

the mean unit total cost of an architectural option do not constitute an exhaustive list. Furthermore, it is highly likely that the answer lies in some combination of sources rather than in a single source. Some of the

possible sources of variation mentioned in this subsection warrant further

study, and thus form the basis of several recommendations for further research

elaborated in the concluding section of this report.

68
Table

4.3.

Weighted

Mean

Total

Cost

of

Installed

Attic

Insulation

Based

on

Actual

R-Value

Added

by

City

in

Dollars

per

"R"

added

per

Square

Foot

($/R»sf)

and

Dollars

per

Square

Foot

($/sf) a

00

*-H CX\ o • CO < • vO • o CM o X H 0) 4-1 CM -cf > CO i—<

00 CO <J •H \ u O • co 3 </> < • r*. X 0) H o CM o 3 X

cfl P“H CO CM

co • o XI & O

CM CO 00 3 o • r>* X) 3 4-1 P • CM • X o O

CO o CO o 3 •H

4J 3

CO cO 3 3 r-l 3 o & 3 CO 00 CM co 3 *

1 pH r» CO a 3

03 o • CM CO •r-lB

O • m • 3

Ph o iH o iH CJ 3

60 •H 3 3 4-1 s

01 4-1

O

-IP CO - r-H CM c- •H X

i—1

O'* v.

D

4-1 a) a) <3 o • p-H -3 X

<2 4 CO • 3 4-1

X o o i—H o |H cO •

<u 60

X

rC 3 0) 3 S H 3 3 X rH i—1

co CN CP

X cO 4-4 CM in cO > 3

Ph o • <J 1 O

CO • o • 3 P3 Ph S o CN o 4-1 o

O- 4-4 3 3

0) CO •H a 4-1 0) X O 6 3

vO o 3 o o

CM <r 4-1 0) •H

(A

O • CN CO -3 4-1 <i • o • 01 a) 4-1 3

Oh o p-H o 3 rH

4-1 co >-, 3

"H 3 A> co O cr 3

'd- co 4-> •H

f—t

*-H Oh iH o

CO o • r-H i—1 3 o 3 C • • CO 3 4-1 •iH w o f—( o 3, 4-4 3 a) 3

•p4 4-1 3 3 • CO CO X o 3 • X 3

00 3 CJ cr JC 3 O

p—H ON o X co o 3 &

PH o • CO

X 0) 4-4 CJ CO • • CO ,3 3 3 3 3 u o *-H o H a) jC 3 O

rH ex 3 •H

CO o 3 3

•H • X •rH

O 3 3 X 0) 4-1 3 i—1 A CM crv 3 3 X 4-) 3 < p-H o 4-1 X X 3 3 3 o • CN CO X co O 3

c_> • • e cO 60 4-4 •H o »-H O P3 3

00 CO •H CO 3 3 CO 3 CX •H "rH •H & 0) a 3

4-)

a •iH 4-4 3

<N 00 CO 1—1 3 CO 3

kJ r—1

00 CO tH o 4-1 4-4

H o • CN 0 o CO CO </> 3 c • Ob « UD !5 O 3 CO o p-H o C u ai CM 3

•H -3 r- o o 3 3 CM -3

0) o x. 3 • 1 X 3 4-1 3 o 3

r^. CO 4-J •H

pp o V.; CO 0) 60 4-4 o • p—H J) 3 3 3 o Vn • crv * CO 0) •H X O o O' S -3 3 3 4-4 s i—1 rH 3

CD CX o 3 X CO « •H 3 CO 3 O CJ 4-1 •H 3 3

r-H < rH 3 O

no 3 0 3 B 4-4

4-1 0) r-H £ 3

CO CO no r-H

X CO 3 CO

4~* • no 4-1 <D c >1 o -3 3

•H

CJ P

04 cti 0) o cO rO CJ

H &

P4 </> cd -O 3

69
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

This section describes further economic research that would be useful in

support of the CSA Weatherization Demonstration Program. In order for this

additional research to be possible, the collection of cost data on the four

major groups of energy conservation options installed in the demonstration

houses must first be completed. These four option groups are 1) conduction,

2) infiltration, 3) mechanical, and 4) hot water. The conduction and infiltration options comprise the architectural options discussed in this report.

The mechanical option group includes those options that affect the operation

of the building space heating system, and the hot water options are those

directed toward improving the operating efficiency of the domestic hot water

system. The collection of data on the total costs of installing these latter

two types of options is currently underway.

Once all the field data have been collected as outlined above, the recommendations for energy conservation retrofits of low-income housing should be

reassessed. The retrofit packages installed in the demonstration houses were

selected on the basis of 1977-78 fuel prices, and energy savings and retrofit

costs that were estimated before the fact. More recent fuel prices and data

on energy savings and retrofit costs collected from the actual demonstration

experience could be used to reassess the retrofit packages.

70
Recent fuel costs could be obtained by contacting all energy utilities serving

the participating demonstration sites for the appropriate rate schedules.

These schedules could be used to determine the marginal cost (including taxes

and all surcharges) of a unit of fuel for each fuel type and site. These

fuel cost data could then be used in a post-retrofit evaluation of the four

major groups of energy conservation options installed in the demonstration

houses. In conjunction with forthcoming estimates for each participating

house of the annual purchased fuel savings attributable to each of the four

option groups, the option and fuel cost data could be used to calculate for

each house: (1) the present value cost of each option group based on the

installed cost and expected replacement schedule of each option; and (2) the

present value of the fuel savings attributable to each option group based on updated fuel prices and the latest DoE projections of fuel price increases.

These present value measures could be used to assess whether the particular

groups of options installed for each fuel type and demonstration site are actually cost effective in the sense of yielding a positive net return on the funds expended. The cost effectiveness of all the options combined

could also be assessed for each participating house. These assessments of

the cost effectiveness of retrofit packages would assist CSA, the Department

of Energy, state and county energy offices, and other interested parties in

deciding whether the originally recommended package of retrofit options can

be expected to pay for itself over a reasonable time period.

The cost effectiveness of the attic insulation option could be more accurately

measured with additional analysis. Because different amounts of attic insulation were added to each house within a demonstration site, the costs of

this option had to be reported in terms of cost per square foot per R-value

added. There is good reason to expect, however, that there is a significant

fixed cost component being hidden in such a measure. For example, it is

likely that the cost per square foot of adding R-22 is less than twice that

of adding R-ll. In other words, the average cost per R-value added is likely

to be lower when more insulation is added to a given size attic. Regression

analysis could be applied to the attic insulation cost data for each city in

order to separate the fixed cost component corresponding to the labor time

spent on gaining access and setting up equipment, from the variable labor

and materials cost components corresponding to each increased unit of R-value

added per square foot. In this way, the true marginal cost of increased

insulation could be more accurately measured.

Another area in which further analysis would be useful deals with the

question of possible economies (or diseconomies) of scale being present in

the installation of architectural options. That is, the size of a particular

job (e.g., square feet of wall area insulated) may be an important factor in

determining the actual cost per square foot of the job. If this is the case,

then the product of a flat (constant) unit cost times the job size will not

provide the best estimate of the true job cost. Regression analysis can be

useful here both to test whether economies (or diseconomies) do exist in the

installation of these retrofit options, as well as to improve the accuracy

of job cost estimates by taking job size into account.

71
A fifth area involves the investigation of whether the cost of a specific

option is significantly different for contracted jobs compared with in-house

jobs. It may be that most of the differences in cost between these two categories are attributable either to other factors (such as regional cost differences) or to random variations. A number of statistical tests could be con- ducted to measure the extent of the true difference between contracted and

in-house job costs.

One other area in which further study is warranted involves the updating of

cost estimates. Most of the cost data collected and reported under this pro- . ject refers to retrofits installed between October 1978 and December 1979.

Because of the rather significant inflation that the U.S. economy is currently

experiencing, the cost estimates for each retrofit need to be periodically

updated, if they are expected to serve as a useful basis for future policy

decisions. A specialized system of cost indexing should be developed to permit periodic revision of the cost estimates to take into account future

changes in the costs of labor and materials. In formulating the index system, an attempt should be made to incorporate both time-related and location-related

variations in cost.

72
REFERENCES

1. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers,

Inc. ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals , New York, 1972.

2. Brookhaven National Laboratory. An Assessment of Thermal Insulation

Materials and Systems for Building Applications, Report No. BNL-50862,

June 1978.

3. Chapman, Robert E. et al. Optimizing Weatherization Investments in LowIncome Housing: Economic Guidelines and Forecasts , National Bureau of

Standards Interagency Report 79-1948, Washington, D.C., February 1980.

4. Crenshaw, Richard et al. CSA Weatherization Demonstration Project Plan , National Bureau of Standards Interagency Report 79-1706, Washington, D.C.,

March 1979.
NBS-114A 'Rev. 2-80

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. 1. PUBLICATION OR 2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. Publication Date BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

REPORT NO.

SHEET (See instructions) NBSIR 80-2167 November 1980

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

weatherization investment costs for low-income housing

5. AUTHOR(S)

Stephen F. Weber, Michael J. Boehm, and Barbara C. Lippiatt

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS, see instructions)

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

7. Contract/Grant No.

8.

Type of Report & Period Covered

Final

9.

SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City. State. ZIP)

Community Services Administration

1200 19th Street, N.W.

Washington. D.C. 20506

10.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

I I Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11.

ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here)

This report presents the results of a project involving the collection and tabulation

of field data on the costs of retrofitting low-income houses for energy conservation.

This project is part of the Community Services Administration Weatherization

Demonstration Program being carried out through the National Bureau of Standards. The

program involves the installation and evaluation of a broad range of energy conservation techniques for over 200 single-family houses in 14 demonstration sites throughout the United States. The energy conservation techniques discussed in this report

consist of a variety of architectural modifications to building envelopes for the

purpose of reducing heat losses due either to air infiltration or conduction. The

methods used to collect and synthesize the field data on the major cost components

of installing these techniques are described. An analysis of these costs is presented

in the form of summary statistics including the weighted mean and standard deviation

of the unit cost of installing each architectural option in each demonstration site.

The significant intercity variation found in the mean unit cost of most techniques

suggests that unique cost estimating procedures may be needed for each city. Possible

sources of variation in the mean unit costs are discussed. Recommendations for

further research include investigating the effect on cost that can be attributed to

selected sources of variation.

12.

KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolons)

Building economics; cost components; data analysis; data collection; demonstration;

economic analysis; energy conservation; insulation; low-income housing; statistics;

unit costs; weatherization.

13.

AVAILABILITY

f X J Uni imited

[ J For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

fv] Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402.

\ J Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

15. Price

USCOMM-DC 6043-PB0