Project Cost Escalation Standards, document IEAB 2007-2 Page 1 

Independent Economic Analysis Board 

Project Cost Escalation Standards 

Task 115 

Council document IEAB 2007-2 March 30, 2007 

Summary 

Project costs as described in project proposals sometimes turn out to be inaccurate. One 

source of error involves cost estimation in the presence of inflation and price changes. 

The purpose of this paper is to determine if some common cost reporting and cost 

escalating standards are advisable for all fish and wildlife projects, and if so, what the 

standards should be. Relevant cost standards are presented in the report and guidance is 

provided for using cost escalators and price indices to improve cost predictions and for 

estimating current costs. The IEAB recommends that information on cost escalating and 

expected inflation be updated regularly and made readily accessible for use in project 

proposal development, review and contracting. 

Inflation and Cost Escalation Principles 

Inflation refers to an increase in price levels over time. Prices paid by fish and wildlife 

projects for inputs such as labor and materials often increase over time, so costs often 

increase even though the level of fish and wildlife services may not. Cost inflation is 

important to the fish and wildlife program in several ways. 

Nominal or current dollars 

refer to the expenses that 

are actually observed at any 

given point in time. 

Constant or real dollars 

remove the effect of 

inflation so that dollar 

amounts in different years 

can be compared without

inflation. Constant or real

dollars are expressed in

terms of a given benchmark 

year (e.g., 2007). 

First, a budget that is fixed over years in nominal dollar 

terms will often be able to accomplish less in the future 

years. Funding recommendations for 2007 to 2009 show 

that, for 299 projects with some funding recommended, 162 

(more than half) were recommended for the same nominal 

dollar amount for each of the three years (NPCC, 2007). If 

input costs increase, project managers will have to change 

the way they manage their fixed budgets in this situation; 

additional investigations in 2009 may be useful to see how 

project managers actually accomplish this. 

Second, managers must often base their cost estimates on past experience. Sometimes, 

estimated costs are based on bids or quotes for the expected time frame in the future. If 

so, no updating may be required. In other cases, costs may be estimated from past 

experience. If these estimates are more than 1 or 2 years old, then inflation from the past 

to the present should be accounted for. Managers need to know what future cost levels 

are reasonable given the past costs and recent and expected inflation. 
Project Cost Escalation Standards, document IEAB 2007-2 Page 2 

Third, managers are often asked to forecast future costs, but these costs will depend on 

future inflation. In the previous case, recent inflation estimates may provide a useful 

basis for estimating current costs. In the third case, inflation must be predicted. 

Fourth, the cost shares for land, energy, and labor vary substantially between projects. 

These costs escalate at different rates, so the costs of different projects escalate at 

different rates. Awareness of these cost escalation differentials could help plan for 

differences in expected cost increases between projects. 

Past inflation is often tracked by price indices, which are weighted averages of many 

prices paid by aggregate groups. The consumer price index (CPI), producer price index 

or the gross national product deflators are examples. One drawback of these indices is 

that they represent a weighted average of a large group of goods. For example, the CPI-U 

is an index based on costs of many goods bought by urban consumers. Many more 

inflation measures are tied to more specific groups of goods and regions of the United 

States. Sometimes, average prices of individual types of goods are available and these 

data can be used to estimate price changes. But in some instances, estimates for the 

pertinent region are not available or the timing of publication may be inadequate. The 

availability, applicability and quality of future inflation forecasts are variable across the 

products and services actually used by specific projects. The question for managers is: 

which price indices and forecasts should be used and in what instances? 

The practice of increasing costs to account for inflation is known as cost escalation. 

Normally, cost escalation will reference a year in which cost data were observed and a 

later year in which the cost will occur. For example, “cost data were escalated from 2000 

to 2007 using the referenced price paid index” or “the referenced price paid index 

forecast was used to escalate 2005 costs to 2009.” 

 “Nominal” or “current” dollars are the actual dollars observed in a past year, or expected 

to be observed in the future. As an example, one might say “with inflation, nominal costs 

are expected to increase 10 percent by 2009.” 

“Constant” or “real” dollars remove the effect of inflation so that dollar amounts in 

different years can be compared without the effect of inflation. Constant or real dollars 

should always be referenced to a base year such as “2007 dollars.” As an example, one 

might say “after accounting for inflation, real costs are expected to decline 2 percent by 

2009 to $98 in 2007 dollars.” 

Review of Past Proposals to Ascertain Potential for Improvement 

A sample of past proposals (six habitat and five hatchery) which were selected for the 

IEAB project “Scoping Investigation of Available Project Information” (IEAB document 

2006-2) were reviewed to identify key cost categories and to see how cost escalation 

issues were addressed. 
Project Cost Escalation Standards, document IEAB 2007-2 Page 3 

Habitat proposals reviewed: 

• ODFW Blue Mountain Oregon Fish Habitat Improvement 

http://www.cbfwa.org/solicitation/components/forms/Proposal.cfm?PropID=379

• Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation 

http://www.cbfwa.org/solicitation/components/forms/Proposal.cfm?PropID=171

• Trout Creek Fish Habitat Restoration Project 

http://www.cbfwa.org/solicitation/components/forms/Proposal.cfm?PropID=241

• Northeast Oregon Wildlife Project Precious Lands 

http://www.cbfwa.org/solicitation/components/forms/Proposal.cfm?PropID=200

• Pine Creek Conservation Area: Wildlife Habitat and Watershed Management on 

33,557-acres to benefit grassland, shrub-steppe, riparian, and aquatic species. 

http://www.cbfwa.org/solicitation/components/forms/Proposal.cfm?PropID=109

• Libby Mitigation Program 

http://www.cbfwa.org/solicitation/components/forms/Proposal.cfm?PropID=500

Hatchery proposals: 

• Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement Project 

http://www.cbfwa.org/solicitation/components/forms/Proposal.cfm?PropID=188

• Hood R Prod O&M - Ws/ODFW 

http://www.cbfwa.org/solicitation/components/forms/Proposal.cfm?PropID=266

• Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Operations & Maintenance 

http://www.cbfwa.org/solicitation/components/forms/Proposal.cfm?PropID=573

• Restoration and Conservation Aquaculture 

http://www.cbfwa.org/solicitation/components/forms/Proposal.cfm?PropID=152

• Sherman Creek Hatchery - O&M 

http://www.cbfwa.org/solicitation/components/forms/Proposal.cfm?PropID=151

For each of the chosen proposals, three questions were considered: 

2. If cost estimates are based on prior-year costs, were they adjusted for inflation? No 

instances were found where the source of the cost estimates was provided in enough 

detail to answer this question. 
Project Cost Escalation Standards, document IEAB 2007-2 Page 4 

3. Are 2006 cost estimates provided in current dollars? Yes, as far as we can tell., 

However, there does not appear to be a standard for reporting costs in proposals did 

not state if the costs were in current dollars or not. 

4. Are future costs escalated to be reported in future dollars? Most of the eleven 

proposals appear to include inflation in their cost estimates. A few cost categories in a 

few proposals did not. Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation did not include inflation in 

land costs in their cost estimate, and Libby Mitigation did not inflate some costs. 

Otherwise, there was an obvious attempt by project managers to account for inflation. 

While most proposals requested funding with inflation, most Council funding 

recommendations did not provide for inflation. Six out of 11 funding recommendations 

were flat-lined, i.e., FY07 funding was recommended at or below the requested level and 

FY08 and FY09 funding was the same amount as FY07. Only 4 of 11 projects were 

funded at or above the requested level. One was funded at a level lower than requested, 

but increasing over time. The implications of “flat-lining” budgets are beyond the scope 

of this project, but the practice could be detrimental to projects that are proposed at 

efficient funding levels. 

Inflation and Price Indices 

Here, we investigate the use of inflation and price indices to see if cost estimates might 

be improved. We report on a variety of price indices which might be useful for fish and 

wildlife projects. Potential usefulness is related to the types of goods and services that are 

indexed and the geographic location of the prices. 

Indices for Recent Inflation 

Few price indices specifically relate to the types of goods and services purchased by fish 

and wildlife projects, but some are available for similar goods and related industries. 

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL, 2007) prepares the producer price index (PPI), 

primarily for manufactured goods, by commodity or industry. The PPI measures the 

average change over time in the selling prices received by domestic producers for their 

output. These indices might be useful for some very specific components of projects such 

as lumber, farm products or gasoline. A sample is provided as Table 1. 

Note that there is a large disparity between price increases for different commodity 

groups. In particular, the price of gasoline increased much faster than the other 

commodities. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA, 2007) provides price paid indices for 

agricultural production costs. Indices are published annually in July for a variety of types 

of production costs including farm machinery, building materials, and farm services. A 

sample is provided as Table 2. Average prices paid for some individual items of potential 

interest to project managers; types of herbicides for example, are also provided. 
Project Cost Escalation Standards, document IEAB 2007-2 Page 5 

Table 1. 

Producer Price Indices for Five Commodity Groups, 2001 to 2006, 

2001 = 100 

Year 

All 

commodities Lumber 

Construction 

Machinery & 

Equip 

Farm 

Products Gasoline 

2001 100 100 100 100 100 

2002 98 99 101 95 92 

2003 103 102 103 107 113 

2004 109 119 106 119 142 

2005 117 116 113 114 186 

2006 123 110 118 113 218 

Source: DOL, 2007. 2006 data are preliminary 

Table 2. 

USDA Agricultural Production Cost Indices, Annual, 2001 to 2005, 2001 = 100

Year 

Agricultural 

Chemicals Gasoline 

Farm 

Machinery 

Building 

Materials 

Farm 

Services 

Farm 

Services 

Custom 

Rates Rent 

Wage 

Rates 

2001 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

2002 98 101 103 101 99 99 102 105 

2003 100 125 106 102 102 103 103 108 

2004 100 140 113 111 102 103 103 110 

2005 101 180 121 117 106 103 107 113 

Source: USDA, 2007 

The USDA publishes data on agricultural land prices paid by state (USDA, 2004). From 

their documentation: 

“Estimates of agricultural real estate values are published annually using 

a variety of survey indications and check data. The agricultural census provides a 

benchmark for farm real estate values once every 5 years. After a census 

benchmark is established, the annual estimates for the current census year and the 4 

previous non-census years are reevaluated and revised, if necessary.” 

A price index based on reported land values is provided as Table 3. 
Project Cost Escalation Standards, document IEAB 2007-2 Page 6 

Table 3. 

Crop Land Price Index Based on Land Values Reported by the USDA, 2001 = 100

Idaho Montana Oregon Washington 

Year All 

Irrigated 

NonIrrigated All

Irrigated

NonIrrigated All

Irrigated

NonIrrigated All 

Irrigated 

NonIrrigated

199

9 92 92 94 95 93 97 93 95 91 99 103 94

200

0 95 95 97 97 96 98 96 97 95 100 101 97

200

1 100 100 100 

10

0 100 100

10

0 100 100 100 100 100

200

2 104 105 103 

10

2 103 101

10

3 102 104 102 100 103

200

3 109 111 105 

10

5 107 104

10

4 105 104 103 100 106

Source: USDA, 2004 

The State of Washington Department of Transportation (DOT) provides construction cost 

data and indices in graphical form for highways based on bid data (Washington DOT, 

2007). Potentially useful data are provided for structural concrete and roadway 

excavation. The State of Oregon DOT (2007) provides similar information including 

indices for excavation, surfacing and structures. A sample indexed to 2001 is provided as 

Table 4. 

Table 4. 

Oregon DOT Price Indices for Highway Construction, 

2001 = 100 

Excavation Structures Structural 

Concrete 

200

1 100 100 100 

200

2 146 133 150 

200

3 143 142 153 

200

4 135 129 128 

200

5 162 180 199 

200

6 215 200 221 

Source: Oregon DOT, 2007 

The Federal Highway Administration recently published a paper discussing the reasons 

why the States have been experiencing “unprecedented construction cost increases” 

(USDOT, 2007). Some of the stated reasons for these cost increases are: 

• Local material shortages 
Project Cost Escalation Standards, document IEAB 2007-2 Page 7 

• Consolidation in the highway construction industry 

• Spot shortages of skilled labor, 

• Increased non-highway construction demand following the 2005 hurricane season 

The article reveals how national and even international events can shape prices and price 

indices observed. 

“During 2005 and early 2006, some construction material prices rose much faster 

than consumer or producer prices indices. The availability of portland cement, 

copper, gypsum and PVC pipe became an issue in many parts of the US. Of 

particular concern to the highway industry, the availability of portland cement 

became a major worry during Hurricane reconstruction efforts in late 2005. 

However, on March 6, 2006, the U.S. Commerce Department, the U.S. Trade 

Representative and Mexico's Secretary of Economy signed the U.S.-Mexico 

Agreement on Cement. This agreement resolves a sixteen-year dispute over the 

U.S. antidumping duty order on imports of gray portland cement from Mexico.” 

Construction cost indices are also provided by the Engineering News Record (McGrawHill, 2007). These data are available through the Engineering News Record publication 

or can be purchased on-line. A summary of their building cost index and construction 

cost index for Seattle is provided as Table 5. Table 5 suggests that building and 

construction costs have nor risen nearly as fast as excavation and highway construction 

costs. 

Table 5. 

Engineering News Record Building and Construction 

Cost Indices, December, Seattle, 2001 = 100 

Building Cost Index Construction Cost Index 

2001 100 100 

2002 101 103 

2003 105 107 

2004 113 111 

2005 118 115 

2006 120 118 

Source: McGraw-Hill 2007 

Labor costs can be an important share of fish and wildlife project costs. Recent average 

wage rates per job by State or County can be obtained from the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis (USDC, 2007). A sample of data for Oregon and some local areas are shown in 

Table 6. Some of these data are not as current as one might desire. 

Data on average compensation rate by industry can be derived from this source for any 

State county or metropolitan area by dividing compensation by industry (Bureau of 

Economic Affairs [BEA] code CA06) by total full and part-time jobs in that industry 

(BEA code CA25). The employment data are even less current, however. As of January 

2007, average compensation per job by industry could be calculated only through 2004. 
Project Cost Escalation Standards, document IEAB 2007-2 Page 8 

These data showed some interesting trends. Average compensation per public-sector job 

in Oregon increased 29 percent from 2001 to 2004. In the private sector, average 

compensation increased only 8 percent. Differences in compensation rates by type of 

work could be important to cost estimating for project managers. Possibly, the increase 

could reflect an increase in full time employment relative to part-time or a shift in the 

types of jobs within each sector. 
Project Cost Escalation Standards, document IEAB 2007-2 Page 9 

Table 6. 

Index of Average Wage Rate per Job, Selected States, CSAs and MSAs, 2001 = 100 

Oregon Washington 

SeattleTacomaOlympia, 

WA (CSA) Idaho 

PortlandVancouverBeaverton, 

OR-WA 

(MSA) 

Coos Bay, 

OR 

Micropolitan 

SA 

Prineville, 

OR 

Micropolitan 

SA 

200

0 99 100 100 100 100 97 97 

200

1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

200

2 101 102 102 102 101 105 102 

200

3 103 104 104 104 102 102 106 

200

4 106 107 107 108 106 105 111 

200

5 110 110 110 112 110 108 116 

Source: USDC, BEA, 2006 

The data in Tables 1 to 6 shows that prices and price indices are available for goods and 

services similar to those used by fish and wildlife projects. The rates of price increase for 

different types of goods vary widely. The indices suggest that, over the 2001 to 2005 

period, some prices, - farm services and agricultural chemicals, for example - increased at 

a relatively slow pace. The price of fuel, buildings and excavation increased relatively 

fast. 

Some costs increased at a very fast pace compared to overall inflation rates. Table 7 

shows the CPI-U, published by the Department of Commerce (USDC), for urban 

consumers in the western region of the United States and 2 metropolitan areas. From 

2001 to 2006, consumer prices in the region increased ten to fifteen percent. During the 

same period, some types of construction costs and the price of gasoline approximately 

doubled. 

Table 7 

Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) for Western Region and 

Local Metropolitan Areas, 2001 = 100 

Year West Region Portland-Salem 

Seattle_TacomaBremerton 

200

0 96 98 96 

200

1 100 100 100 

200

2 102 101 102 

200

3 104 102 104 
Project Cost Escalation Standards, document IEAB 2007-2 Page 10 

200

4 107 105 105 

200

5 110 107 108 

200

6 114 Not available 112 

Source: USDC 2007a 
Project Cost Escalation Standards, document IEAB 2007-2 Page 11 

Inflation Forecasts 

Relative to the indices for recent inflation, there are fewer inflation forecasts publicly 

available. Many inflation forecasts are provided privately. This paper focuses on inflation 

forecasts that can be readily accessed without cost. 

Inflation forecasting is an important problem for economics, and many economists 

conduct research to find better methods of forecasting. Some economists have found that 

complicated economic models have recently done no better in inflation forecasting than 

simple models (Fisher, Liu and Zhou, 2002). 

Some forecasts available in the public domain are provided by the Congressional Budget 

Office (CBO, 2006). The CBO provides forecasts of these price indices: 

• Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Price Index 

• Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) Price Index 

• Core PCE Price Index (like above, but excludes food and energy) 

• Consumer Price Index (CPI) (for urban consumers) 

• Core Consumer Price Index (for urban consumers, excludes food and energy) 

A sample is provided as Table 8. These data suggest that overall inflation is expected to 

increase prices by about 10 percent from 2005 to 2009. 

The State of Oregon Office of Economic Analysis provides quarterly economic forecasts 

which include the CPI for Portland, Oregon average wage rates, the national GDP price 

index and the PCE Price Index. The most recent forecast is provided in Table 9. Overall 

inflation in the Portland-Salem MSA is forecast to be similar to the national average, but 

wage rates were expected to increase 17 percent from 2005 to 2009. 

Table 8. 

Forecast Price Indices for GDP, PCE and Consumer Prices, 2005 = 

100 

GDP PCE 

Core 

PCE Consumer 

Core 

Consumer 

2005 100 100 100 100 100 

2006 103 103 102 103 103 

2007 105 105 104 105 105 

2008 107 107 106 108 108 

2009 109 109 109 110 110 

Source: CBO, 2006 
Project Cost Escalation Standards, document IEAB 2007-2 Page 12 

Table 9. 

Economic Forecasts from the Oregon Office of Economic 

Analysis, 2005 = 100 

GDP 

implicit 

price 

deflator 

Personal 

consumption 

deflator 

CPI Urban 

Consumers 

PortlandSalem MSA 

Oregon 

Average 

Wage 

Rate 

200

5 100 100 100 100 

200

6 103 103 103 105 

200

7 105 105 105 108 

200

8 107 107 108 112 

200

9 109 109 110 117 

Source: Oregon Office of Economic Analysis, 2007. 

The Financial Forecast Center (2007), an on-line service, provides forecasts of the 

producer price index, but only for six months ahead. The most recent data show no 

change over the period of March to August 2007. 

The national Association of General Contractors of America (2006) provides general 

outlooks for construction costs and prices of specific materials as of September 2006. 

This information could be useful for projects with construction components, or that 

require specific materials. For example, as of August 2006, “contractors should expect 

the delivered cost of many inputs to rise faster than the producer price index.” Price 

trends for diesel, plastics, gypsum, asphalt, copper, steel, and concrete are discussed. “It 

appears price increases over the next 6 -12 months will be less severe than recently for 

copper and concrete products. Construction plastics and gypsum products should turn 

down in price. Steel, diesel fuel and asphalt prices could move in either direction.” This 

source also summarizes public data on recent price increases in construction and for 

construction materials. 

Recommended Price Indices and Escalators 

Updating recent costs to current dollars 

To provide more accurate cost forecasts, Fish and Wildlife managers should update past 

cost data to current dollars. Absent any information that price changes will be different 

from average inflation, an inflation index such as the GDP price deflator can be used. 

Recent history reminds us, however, that some costs escalate much more rapidly than 

average. Managers should be aware of such price trends and, when identified, more 

detailed information for cost escalating and forecasting may be necessary. 
Project Cost Escalation Standards, document IEAB 2007-2 Page 13 

A number of cost indices are potentially useful for updating recent cost information. 

However, the types of goods and services covered are somewhat different than those 

required by fish and wildlife projects. In general, local information about actual cost 

increases for specific goods and services are preferable to state or national price indices 

for similar goods and services, but the local information should be well-documented. 

Absent such sources, the following indices are recommended (links are provided in the 

reference list below): 

• Purchase of specific commodities: use the producer price index. 

• Purchase of agricultural services, custom operations or labor in rural areas: use 

USDC BEA local area information for labor where possible, use USDA 

agricultural production cost indices otherwise. 

• Rural land prices: use USDA (2004) information. More detailed information 

might be obtained from State offices of the Association of Farm Managers and 

Rural Land Appraisers. Local realtors may be used to check on general trends. 

• Road construction and excavation: Use State DOT data. 

• Other construction: use Engineering News Record data (small cost required). 

• Labor: use USDC BEA data. May want to consider county data on compensation 

per job by industry from same source. Two tables must be acquired: 1) total 

compensation (CA06), and 2) number of full and part-time jobs (CA25). 

Example of updating recent costs to current dollars 

Suppose that a project would include construction of small building and labor near 

Portland. It is known than an identical building was built in 2002 for $20,000, and the 

cost of labor was $20 an hour in 2004. What are the expected costs in 2006? 

From Table 5, the expected cost of the building should be increased by a factor of 

120/101 (the index in 2006 divided by the index in 2002), so the expected cost in 2006 is 

$23,762. Given the cost of this item it might be wise to also obtain a cost estimate from a 

building contractor. From Table 6, average wage rates near Portland increased by a factor 

of 110/102 up to 2005. From 2005 to 2006, wages were expected to increase by another 5 

percent (Table 9). The wage rate in 2006 is expected to be $22.26 an hour [(1.05 x 

(110/102)) x $20]. 

Cost forecasting 

For cost forecasting, most of the same principles apply. Recently, use of an overall 

inflation rate forecast would have understated cost increases for projects that were 

relatively dependent on excavation or energy. Managers should try to be aware of recent 

price trends, and local sources of information on expected costs may be useful. 

Information from trade associations such as the Association of General Contractors of 

America may be helpful. Absent information that costs will not follow inflation, overall 

inflation forecasts from State or federal offices (the CBO forecast, Table 8) should 

suffice. Those reviewing and making recommendations and decisions on project funding 
Project Cost Escalation Standards, document IEAB 2007-2 Page 14 

should take this expected inflation into account. This should yield more accurate 

projections of future funding requirements. 
Project Cost Escalation Standards, document IEAB 2007-2 Page 15 

Example of cost forecasting 

Suppose that costs of a project were $100,000 in 2006, and about half of the costs were 

labor. What is the expected cost in 2007 and 2008? 

From Table 9, general inflation was expected to increase costs by a factor of 105/103 in 

2007 and 107/105 in 2008. The average wage rate was expected to increase faster; by 

factors of 108/105 and 112/108 in 2007 and 2008, respectively. Labor costs and other 

costs in 2006 were both about $50,000. Therefore, project costs are expected to be about 

$102,400 in 2007 and $105,275 in 2008. [In 2008, (107/103) x $50,000 + (112/105) x 

$50,000] 

References 

Association of General Contractors of America. 2006. AGC’s Construction Inflation 

Alert. Reported by AGC’s Chief Economist Ken Simonson. September. 

Congressional Budget Office. 2006. http://www.cbo.gov/budget

Congressional Budget Office. 2006. Backup Data for Table C-1: CBO's Year-by-Year 

Forecast and Projections for Calendar Years 2006 Through 2016 (and Actual Data for 

Calendar Years 1950 Through 2005). The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update, 

August 2006. http://mirror1.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7731/01-24-BudgetOutlook.pdf

Financial Forecast Center. 2007. 

http://www.forecasts.org/ppi.htm

Fisher, J.D.M., Chin Te Ziu, Ruilin Zhou, 2002. When Can We Forecast Inflation? 

Economic Perspectives. 1st Quarter 2002, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. 

McGraw-Hill Construction. 2007. Engineering News Record. ENR.com. 

https://www.enr.com/default.asp

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2007. Final Council Recommendations for 

FY 2007-09 Proposals. http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/budget/2007/reviews.asp

Oregon, State of. State of Oregon Office of Economic Analysis. 2007. Economic 

Forecast. Appendix A. Economic Forecast Detail. 

http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/OEA/economic.shtml

Oregon, State of. 2007. Department of Transportation. Construction Costs Trends. 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/ESTIMATING/cost_trends.shtml
Project Cost Escalation Standards, document IEAB 2007-2 Page 16 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2004. Statistical Bulletin Number 993. Agricultural 

Land Values and Cash Rents Final Estimates 1999-2003.National Agricultural Statistics 

Service. March 2004. 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/reports/general/sb/sb993.txt

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2006. Agricultural Prices. 2005 Summary. Pr 1-3(06)b 

National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1003

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2006. Local Area 

Personal Income. CA34 Wage and Salary Disbursemenets, Wage and Salary 

Employment, Average Wage per Job. 

http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/default.cfm?catable=CA34§ion=2

U.S. Department of Labor. 2007. Producer Price Indices. 

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/home.htm

U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2007a. Consumer Price Index. All 

Urban Consumers. 

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=dropmap&series_ 

id=CUURA425SA0,CUUSA425SA0 

U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. 2007. Highway 

Construction Cost Increases and Competition Issues. Washington. 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/price.cfm

Washington, State of. 2007. Trends in Highway Material Costs. 

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/construction/constructioncosts.cfm

____________________________________ 

q:\tm\ww\ieab\task115reportfinal.doc