Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldrsx
$130,000,000.00 hombre.
bow wow
|
Professor_Dawg grows more and more weary of educating plebes
with each passing year.
But it remains his duty - one he takes solemnly - so he soldiers on.
This despite his dismay with the tone and disposition of the whippersnappers he's forced to endure today. In his day it was unconscionable to display such disrespect towards faculty. Alas, now it appears as though such troubling behaviour is not only tolerated but encouraged.
Professor_Dawg will begin his lecture on the true costing of public works.
Now some find this to be a arduous and complex undertaking requiring long hours of committe work, collection and documentation of stakeholder input, expert analysis, and a profound understanding of both the technical and commercial realms of said project.
Yes it does.
But Professor_Dawg does not find these undertakings to be nearly as complex as many are wont to believe.
'Course most will naturally presume that this is as a result of the three decades Professor_Dawg has spent toiling in this field of academe.
Perhaps.
But he doesn't think so.
It comes as a result of the impressive grasp he has of the very original yet most misunderstood tool used in cost analyses.
Finance ?
Partly.
But hardly.
Statics ?
Statics is child's play.
Contract Law ?
Contract Law is for pussies.
Finite Element Analysis ?
In this realm one sooner finds himself occupied with Infinite Idiot Analysis.
What then ?
Professor_Dawg will tell you.
BASIC ARITHMETIC.
Merely the application of a simple formula will yield the true cost of any public works project.
What is it ?
Well for clarity let's designate the announced cost of said public works project by variable.
Commonly this designation is ' bs '.
Soooo......the formula:
true cost = 1.33 ( bs x 2 ) + ( bs x 1.5 )
From whence is it derived ?
Ahhh.....Professor_Dawg now comes to the crux of the matter.
First let's examine the
bs x 2.
After decades tracking public works projects it has been proven that almost invariably a factor of two must immediately be applied off the top to tabulate the true cost of said public work.
How come ?
Professor Dawg will tell you how come.
When it comes to public works you can be sure that every politico, lawyer, bureaucrat, consultant, insurer, contractor, inspector, supplier, union and anybody even remotely associated with the project is gonna milk the fucken piss out of it. So right off the bat the cost immediately doubles from what the announced cost estimate is said to be. This phenomenon can best be summarized by the old adage: ' Fill yer boots Cleetus while the fillin's gooood '.
So why now is there a factor of
1.33 applied to the sum total ?
Good question.
You see, those in charge of procurement for any public works projects are no dummies. The purchase of material and labour never occurs when those costs are depressed. The very nature of public works dictates that these must be purchased when costs have or are about to peak. Thus a 33% premium is applied to the sum total.
So why do we now add the
bs x 1.5 ?
Professor_Dawg will tell you why.
The politicos, lawyers, bureaucrats, consultants etc. etc etc. are never satisfied with the first round of graft.
In fact Professor_Dawg has yet to see a public works project where they have not come for a second helping.
So that is why a factor of 1.5 is applied to the announced cost and tacked on to the end of the formula.
There you have it newbies.
Public works cost estimates explained.
Soooo............let's put your new found knowledge to use.
This recent Walterdale Bridge goat breeding gala can serve as a demonstrative example.
The announced cost is
$130m.
Plugging this in the formula we have:
1.33 ( $130m x 2 ) + ( $130m x 1.5 )
A quick arithmetical calculation should yield the true cost of said project.
And what do you come up with ?
Professor_Dawg's abacus reads
$540.8m.
Presto !
Furthermore, an integral part of public work costs is the socio-political fallout.
One can reasonably expect that business and property owners within the jurisdiction will be angry at having been misled.
How does this dynamic play out ?
This is where everybody involved plays the blame game.
Each party blames all the others.
For example such credible reasons as that within a bureaucracy of hundreds an honest oversight was made and a junior engineer ended up in charge of the biggest capital works project the department had going at the time.
Consultants blame bureeucrats.
Bureaucrats blame contractors.
Contractors blame consultants. Or bonding companies.
And on and on this clusterfuck drags on.
'Course the elected officials, being the only ones at risk of paying a political price, feign outrage and indignation and vow to get to the bottom of this.
Ultimately they get to the bottom of it all right.
Joey taxpayer's bottom.
Balls deep.
Sans lube.
And so newbs, that ends Professor_Dawg's lecture this afternoon.
You must excuse him as his esteemed tutelage is required for the rest of the afternoon to successfully guide a couple of graduate students through the challenging thesis preparation processs.
Adieu.