See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326016874

RSMeans-Guided Approach to Detailed Cost Estimating: A Residential Project

Case

Conference Paper · June 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 10,994

3 authors, including:

Md Monjurul Hasan Ming Lu

Dhaka University of Engineering & Technology University of Alberta
25 PUBLICATIONS   140 CITATIONS    162 PUBLICATIONS   2,035 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Autonomous Vision-based UAV Systems for Construction Progress Monitoring View project

Frontiers of Engineering Management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Md Monjurul Hasan on 23 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 RSMeans-Guided Approach to Detailed Cost Estimating: A Residential Project Case.
Nicolas Diaz1, Monjurul Hasan2 and Ming Lu3

1) Masters Student, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. Email:
diazhern@ualberta.ca
2) Masters Student, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. Email:
mdmonjurul@ualberta.ca
3) Ph.D., Professor., Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. Email:
mlu6@ualberta.ca

Abstract:

Accuracy in cost estimating is one of the principal challenges the construction industry currently faces. Many
strategies, software, and techniques have been developed to mitigate the tremendous financial losses produced by
such deficiency. A study that compares the strengths and weaknesses in the utilization of Uniformat (UF) and
Masterformat (MF) proposes a detailed systematic framework for the application of these programs to assist users in
the estimation of costs during the development of construction projects. The framework is based on the advantage
that UF and MF provide building projects with clear and proper work breakdown structures for estimating at the
assembly level and detailed method level respectively. To demonstrate the application of the proposed systematic
framework, the cost estimate for a small apartment building project is evaluated by following the steps given in the
framework. Additionally, to evaluate the impact of UF and MF on cost accuracy the estimated costs are compared to
the actual costs of the project. The evaluation reflects how the proposed framework provides a useful tool for
estimators to follow specific steps that will assist them in the application of MF and UF to generate cost estimates
that have higher precision to a modest extent. Likewise, the evaluation highlights the limitations inherent in UF and
MF that hold back higher effectiveness and accuracy in cost estimation.

Keywords: Cost estimate, Uniformat, Masterformat, RSMeans, systematic framework, residential building.

1. INTRODUCTION

RSMeans (RSM) is a reliable source of construction cost and productivity benchmark that was marketed by the
Gordian Group, and has become North America’s leading supplier of construction cost information
(RSMeansonline,2018). The software’s purpose is to provide up-to-date cost information to help developers,
engineers, architects and contractors to accurately estimate and control the costs of construction projects. Users are
able to find data on productivity rates of machinery, crew composition, overhead and profit rates as well as unit
costs respective to specific time period and location of the construction project (Lu and Liu, 2004). RSM uses
Uniformat (UF) and Masterformat (MF) as the basis for data organization. UF is a classification standard for
building specifications, cost estimating and analysis in North America that was developed through a government and
the private sector consensus and has become an ASTM standard (ASTM E1557-09,2015). Meanwhile, MF is a
product of the Construction Specification Institute (CSI) and Construction Specification Canada (CSC) that creates a
classification standard to organize specifications for commercial and institutional building projects in North America
(CSIrecources,2018).

Since RSM is extensively used in North America, several studies have been done to determine the extent of support
it lends for cost estimate and control on construction projects. In the academic paper “Comparative study of
Uniformat and Masterformat for Cost Estimating” (Lu et al., 2017) an outline of a series of steps is proposed as a
methodology to enhance both precision and support that RSM gives to its users. Figure 1 highlights key steps of the
proposed framework.

A vital characteristic of the proposed framework is the distinction between UF and MF in regards to cost breakdown
structure. While UF deals with functional elements (assemblies) of a project by providing a systematic approach that
compares significant components across different projects in cost and function, it is primarily used in stages of a
project where a specific work scope has not been defined and several critical characteristics of the projects have not
been determined (Charette Marshall, 1999). On the other hand, MF accounts for sufficient details of practical
knowledge, terminology, and methods which focus on stages of a project where enough particulars and specific
work scopes have been established (masterformat.com, 2018). Due to the extensive list of numbers and tittles of
materials and methods that are available, the process of creating estimates in MF is time-consuming and tedious,
causing estimators to become puzzled, confused and overwhelmed in the search of a proper item for cost estimate.
Hence, taking into consideration the limited time allowed to build a realistic and detailed cost assessment in bidding,
the application of MF is rare in reality despite its value.

Figure 1. Proposed Methodology to Enhance Precision and Support by RSMeans

The simplicity of UF in contrast with MF, allows the proposed framework to have a significant effect on the
accuracy of a cost estimate by creating a preliminary work breakdown structure (WBS); the initial version can later
be refined into the final work breakdown structure and provides detailed WBS design criteria that will allow a more
straightforward and less overwhelming search of the desired items within MF (Lu et al., 2017).

To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed framework a cost estimate is performed on two components of a
residential building that was built in the City of Edmonton, Canada. The evaluation highlights the advantages and
disadvantages that each process of the framework presents to the user of RSM. Additionally, the costs obtained
through the framework are contrasted against the actual costs of the project in order to determine the accuracy of the
framework.
2. METHOD

2.1 Evaluation of framework

To evaluate the proposed framework, a cost estimate was created for the construction of the small apartment
building that had already been built in the city of Edmonton. The cost estimate focuses on two aspects of the
construction project, the infrastructure, and the envelope. To create the independent WBS for UF and MF, blueprints
of the building were studied. Here, creating WBS means to decompose the entire project hierarchically into major
functional divisions and defining the total project scope (Globerson, 1994). Subsequently, quantity take-offs on each
item of the WBS were created based on initial and final specifications of the project. Costs for each item were
obtained from UF and MF by making the selections of each line item based on the closeness to the project
description and the suitability of each crew for the task performed.

2.2 Special Features of the Building Case

Small apartment buildings that have less than 10 units have recently come to the Canadian market, with increasing
popularity among construction companies and the public. This is due to their relative short construction and sales
period, less capital input and contributions towards sustainable urbanization. However, as it is a new building
product that is under development, it faces various challenges such as proper construction methods, selection of
efficient crew and equipment, schedule alteration, estimating and suitable cost control techniques.

The original design of the small apartment building featured traditional stucco. Since the building code requirements
for the city of Edmonton bans the use of stucco as the foam in the synthetic stucco system is a combustible material,
Hardie Panel & Plank was used for the construction of exterior wall. The Hardie product is a relative new building
product. It’s a cement based non-combustible material, easy to install that requires less maintenance and has a lower
cost compared to the stucco integration. To save cost for roofing and insulation, the small apartment building has a
roof slope similar to one of a small residential house instead of a traditional apartment flat room. The exterior
drywall serves as the exterior sheathing instead of conventional oriented strand board, which can save costs.
Considering the thin residential building envelope, only a single heat recovery ventilator (HRV) is required for
ventilation, while traditionally big apartment buildings use separate HRV or heat pump for each unit. Additionally,
the small apartment building uses electrical baseboard heater instead of traditional hydro baseboard heater or fan-
coil system, which lowers the condominium fee by decreasing the gas bill and reducing the 𝐶𝑂# emission.

3. RESULTS FROM APPLYING UNIFORMAT

3.1 Analysis of Proposed Uniformat Framework

The following sections demonstrates the application of the proposed UF framework shown in Figure 1. The
framework processes the initial project description to deliver the initial project WBS as according to the UF
guideline to perform the quantity take-off and prepare a preliminary project cost estimate with the use of RSM data.
This estimate is independently evaluated in respect to analyzing the level of support to the estimator. Here, in
connection with construction of small building apartments, this paper only focuses on the infrastructure and
envelope components of the project. The initial project description is presented in the following section (3.1.1) and
the resulting WBS, quantity take off and cost estimate as according to the project description are presented in Figure
2, Table 1 and Table 2 respectively.

3.1.1 Initial Project Description

Infrastructure: The project has an area of 0.09 acres for which a topographical survey and placement of boundary
and survey markers are required. The foundation requires strip footing, concrete filling and reinforcing steel.
Meanwhile the foundation walls need to be 6” thick and have a height of 6ft. The slab on grade is designed to be 6”
thick.

Envelope: The roof uses steel decks that are 3” deep hence they will require a flat rafter made of wood. The exterior
wall is smooth precast concrete 4” thick with a polymer based exterior insulation and finish system. 24 windows are
required along with 2 doors.
 Figure 2. Uniformat Work Breakdown Structure

Table 1. Uniformat Quantity Takeoff

Item Unit Quantity Unit Quantity
Surveying
Foundation Marking ft² 4027.00 m² 374.12
3
Excavation ft³ 7303.20 m 206.80
Footing
Footing Excavation ft³ 22.19 m 3 0.63
Steel Reinforcement Pound/Foot 229.00 kg/m 340.79
Concrete Placement ft³ 33.14 m 3 0.94
Wall Foundation
Excavation ft³ 520.38 m 3 14.74
Steel Reinforcement Pound/Foot 42729.29 kg/m 63588.02
Concrete Placement ft³ 520.38 m 3 14.74
Foundation Beams
Steel Reinforcement Pound/Foot 384.72 kg/m 572.52
3
Concrete Placement ft³ 54.74 m 1.55
Colum Foundation
Steel Reinforcement Pound/Foot 835.10 kg/m 1242.76
3
Concrete Placement ft³ 86.44 m 2.45
Floor Foundation
Excavation ft³ 1192.66 m 3 33.77
3
Compacted Fill ft³ 5869.00 m 166.19
Polyethylene Caliber 6 ft² 7157.00 m² 664.91
4" min Concrete Slab 25 MPA ft² 7157.00 m² 664.91
Steel Reinforcement Pound/Foot 1284.95 kg/m 1912.21
Concrete Placement ft² 7157.00 m² 664.91
 Table 2. Costs Estimates
Envelope Cost Estimate
Ext. Total
Assembly Total Incl.
Description Quantity Unit Incl. O&P
Number O&P ($)
($)
Foundation Wall, CIP, 6’ wall height,
A10101053000 direct chute, .111 CY/LF. 4.95 PLF, 6” 291 L.F 127.91 37221.81
thick
Strip footing, concrete, reinforced, load
A10101102700 11.1 KLF, soil bearing capacity 6KSF, 291 L.F 52.68 15329.88
12” deep x 24” wide
Slab on grade, 6” thick, non industrial,
A10301204460 7157 S.F 7.81 55896.17
non reinforced.
Excavate and fill, 1000 SF 4’ deep sand,
A20101102220 4027 S.F 1.13 4550.51
gravel, or common earth, on site storage
Subtotal 112998.37
General Contractor’s Overhead and Profit (10%) 11299.84
Grand Total 124298.21
Infrastructure Cost Estimate
Ext. Total
Assembly Total Incl.
Description Quantity Unit Incl. O&P
Number O&P ($)
($)
B10201022550 Wood roof, flat rafter, 2"x 4", 16" OC. 1215.50 S.F. 3.13 3804.52
Exterior wall, precast concrete, flat, 4"
B20101023000 5778.89 S.F. 29.94 173019.97
thick, 5' x 18', smooth gray, low rise.
E.I.F.S., plywood sheathing, 1x8 fascia,
B20101525100 R4 insulation, stud wall, 2" x 4", 16" 5778.89 S.F. 15.35 88705.96
O.C., 1"EPS
Windows, steel, double hung, 1/4"
B2020104500 24.00 each 1494.30 35863.20
tempered, 2'-8" x 4'-6"
Door, aluminum, combination, storm &
2.00 Opng 563.99 1127.98
B203023060000 screen, hinged, 3'-0" x 6'-8" opening
Subtotal 302521.62
General Contractor’s Overhead and Profit (10%) 30252.16
Grand Total 332773.79

3.2 Remarks on UF Framework

In the perspective of a cost estimator, the application of UF framework contains several weaknesses. If the initial
project description contains several explicit items it is very common to see that UF does not provide exact estimates
for such items, which leads an estimator to find items that are similar but never the same. Such limitations on items,
creates discrepancy on the estimate and creates additional tedious work for the estimator as he or she has to go over
several items and identify which falls closer in similitude to what is being searched. In the case of having an initial
project description whose characteristics can be found in UF, the work for an estimator is much simpler.
Furthermore, having aspects of the projects whose characteristics might have been changed to fit the data available
on UF might create complications on the integration of a proper WBS, since it will either reflect different features of
the actual project or the features that can be found in the UF data. The framework does not have an impact on the
quantity takeoff for the project, as the quantity takeoff of the study case was completely retrieved from performance
records of actual work done and the blueprints of the project.

The several factors mentioned in the previous paragraph also create an obstacle to the transition from UF to MF
estimate. The transition focuses on the acceptance of the project preliminary cost, but this will have discrepancies
that can range from insignificant to very high, which completely relies on the data that UF provides to the estimator.
Hence, the estimator is faced with the challenge to evaluate a cost estimate which he or she already knows has
imperfection.

4. RESULTS PROVIDED BY MASTERFORMAT

4.1 Analysis of Masterformat Framework

The following items demonstrates the application of the proposed MF framework shown in Figure 1. The framework
aims to process the new final project description to deliver the final project WBS using MF guideline to refine the
previously performed quantity take-off and prepare the final project cost estimate. Like before, this estimate is
independently evaluated to evaluate the level of support available to the estimator. Here, in connection with
construction of small building apartments, this paper only focuses on the infrastructure and envelope components of
the project. The initial project description is presented in the following section (4.1.1) and the resulting WBS,
quantity take off and cost estimate as according to the project description are presented in Figure 3, Table 3 and
Table 4 respectively.

4.1.1 Final Project Description

Infrastructure: The project has an area of 0.09 acres for which a topographical survey and placement of boundary
and survey markers will be required. The footing foundation will require a 270.68 bank cubic yard excavation of
common earth and placement of #8 reinforcing steel grade 60 of approximately 0.150 tons followed by filling of
4000 psi heavy weight Portland cement. The wall foundation will require an excavation of 19.270 bank cubic yard
of common earth using a 3⁄4 CY excavator. The walls will also require 21.360 tons of #4 reinforcing steel, grade 60
followed by filling of 4000 psi heavy weight Portland cement. Columns will not require any more excavation,
instead they will require0.190 tons of #4 reinforcing steel, grade 60 and filling of 3.20 cubic yards of 4000 psi heavy
weight Portland cement.

Envelope: The projects envelope is composed by 5 items; Exterior floor, roof, exterior walls, exterior windows and
exterior doors. The exterior walls will require precast wall panels that are smooth and gray, 4’ x 8’ x 4” thick and
3000 psi, as well as cornice boards and a polymer based exterior insulation and finish system. The roof’s trusses
need to be galvanized metal studs with 4:12 pitch, 18 ga x 4” chords and 16’ span. Precast slab for the roof needs to
be at least 8” thick. The small apartment building has 24 windows with dimensions shown in the blue prints as well
as a front door and back door for which moldings will be required. The exterior floor will require plant- mix asphalt
paving.

Figure 3. Masterformat Work Breakdown Structure

 Table 3. Masterformat Quantity Takeoff
Item Unit Quantity Unit Quantity
Surveying
Foundation Marking ft² 4027.00 m² 374.12
3
Excavation ft³ 7303.20 m 206.80
Footing
Footing Excavation ft³ 22.19 m 3 0.63
Steel Reinforcement Pound/Foot 229.00 kg/m 340.79
Concrete Placement ft³ 33.14 m 3 0.94
Wall Foundation
Excavation ft³ 520.38 m 3 14.74
Steel Reinforcement Pound/Foot 42729.29 kg/m 63588.02
Concrete Placement ft³ 520.38 m 3 14.74
Foundation Beams
Steel Reinforcement Pound/Foot 384.72 kg/m 572.52
3
Concrete Placement ft³ 54.74 m 1.55
Colum Foundation
Steel Reinforcement Pound/Foot 835.10 kg/m 1242.76
3
Concrete Placement ft³ 86.44 m 2.45
Floor Foundation
Excavation ft³ 1192.66 m 3 33.77
3
Compacted Fill ft³ 5869.00 m 166.19
Polyethylene Caliber 6 ft² 7157.00 m² 664.91
4" min Concrete Slab 25 MPA ft² 7157.00 m² 664.91
Steel Reinforcement Pound/Foot 1284.95 kg/m 1912.21
Concrete Placement ft² 7157.00 m² 664.91

Table 4. Masterformat Cost Estimate for Envelope

Envelope Cost Estimate
Ext. Total
Assembly Total Incl.
Description Quantity Unit Incl. O&P
Number O&P ($)
($)

Topographical survey, conventional,

22113090100 0.09 Acre 4493.85 404.45
maximum

Boundary & survey markers, lot

22113130320 location and lines, for average 0.09 Acre 1710.2 153.92
quantities
Reinforcing steel, in place, columns, #3
to #7, A615, grade 60, incl labor for
32111600200 0.19 Ton 2936.78 557.99
accessories , excl material for
accessories
Reinforcing steel, in place, elevated
slaps, #4 to #17, A615, grade 60, incl
32111600400 21.36 Ton 2211.73 47242.55
labor for accessories, excl material for
accessories
 Reinforcing steel, in place, footings, #8
to #18, A615, grade 60, incl labor for
32111600550 0.15 Ton 2058.19 308.73
accessories, excl material for
accessories
Structural concrete, ready mix,
heavyweight, 4000 psi, includes local
33113350300 1.23 C.Y. 207.14 254.78
aggregate, Portland cement (Type I)
and water
Structural concrete, ready mix, sand,
33113354300 4000 psi, includes local aggregate, 19.27 C.Y. 207.14 3991.59
Portland cement (Type I) and water
Structural concrete, ready mix,
33113354700 heavyweight, 4000 psi, includes local 3.2 C.Y. 207.14 662.85
aggregate, Portland
Excavating trench or continuous
footing, common earth, 3/8 C.Y.
312316130050 1.23 B.C.Y. 12.79 15.73
excavator, 1' to 4" deep, excludes
sheeting or dewatering
Excavating trench or continuous
footing, common earth, 3/4 C.Y.
312316130500 270.49 B.C.Y. 10.69 2891.54
excavator, 6' to 10" deep, excludes
sheeting or dewatering
Excavating trench or continuous
312316135140 footing, loam or sandy clay, 3/8 C.Y. 19.27 B.C.Y. 9.86 190.00
excavator, 6' to 10"
Subtotal 56674.12
General Contractor’s Overhead and Profit (10%) 5667.41
Grand Total 62341.54
Infrastructure Cost Estimate
Ext. Total
Assembly Total Incl.
Description Quantity Unit Incl. O&P
Number O&P ($)
($)
Precast slab, roof/floor members,
34113500100 1215.50 S.F. 15.05 18293.28
grouted, hollow, 8" thick, pre-stressed
Precast wasll panel, smooth, gray,
34113500150 unisulated, low rise, 4"x8"x4" thick, 5778.89 S.F. 63.81 368745.23
3000 psi.
Roof truss, using galvanized LB metal
studs, fink(W) or King Post type, to
54413600120 20.00 Ea. 202.81 4056.20
4:12 pitch, 18 ga x 4" chords, bridging
& bracing.
Exterior trim and molding, cornice
62213400960 291.00 L.F. 3.01 875.91
board, cedar, rough sawn, 1"x3"
Moldings, window & door, window
trim sets, 2-1/2" wide, includes casings, 24.00 Opng 79.26 1902.24
62213505910
header, stops, stool & apron
Exterior wood door frames, colonial,
64813102400 in-swing, fluted pilasters, flat head, 6' 2.00 Ea. 606.21 1212.42
opening, incl. trim and door
Polymer based exterior insulation and
724131000095 finish system, field applied, 1" EPS 5778.80 S.F. 10.33 59695.00
insulation
321216130480 Plant-mix asphalt paving, for highways 20.00 S.Y. 30.16 603.20
 and large paved areas, wearing course,
4" thick, no hauling included
Subtotal 455383.48
General Contractor’s Overhead and Profit (10%) 4538.35
Grand Total 500921.82

4.2 Remarks on MF Framework

The application of the MF framework begins with the approval of the project preliminary costs from UF, which as
discussed previously may already contain high levels of inaccuracy. With the acceptance of UF cost, the framework
focuses on creating a final project description that allows the determination of crucial aspects of the project but also
it is used as a filter to avoid the discrepancies between the project specifications and the data that has been already
obtained, allowing the estimate to become more accurate. This concept of getting rid of discrepancies is enforced
through the identification of sub item details, which also allows the estimator to get a more comprehensive
understanding of the small detail of the project. Creating a final Masterformat WBS and comparing it to the project
requirements is another tool proposed by the framework that assures the cost estimate can be reliable. Unfortunately,
even though MF has a large number of items that contain high level of details, the estimating process still challenges
the estimator with having to go over several items and identifying which falls closer to what he or she is looking for,
as work items might not have a perfect match within the RSM data.

An important difference that the MF structure has with the UF structure is the step of matching the WBS with the
project requirements as a way to eliminate or reduce the discrepancies that have resulted from the initial UF
estimate, which leads to the creation of the project final costs.

5. DISCUSSION

Through the process of evaluating the framework on the construction of the small apartment, the final cost estimate
and the actual cost of the project can be seen in table 5. The results manifest how the UF-based cost was 411%
overestimated to the actual cost for the envelope, while for the infrastructure it was 20% underestimated. Regarding
MF, the cost estimate was 206 % higher than the actual for the envelope and 20% higher than the actual cost for the
infrastructure.

Table 5. Contrast between UF, MF and actual cost of the project.

Total UF Cost Total MF Cost Actual Total UF Ratio to MF Ratio to
Cost Total Cost Total Cost
Envelope 124298.21 62341.54 30245.18 4.11 2.06
Infrastructure 332773.78 500921.83 413467.74 0.80 1.21

The results obtained by following the proposed framework reflects how a higher accuracy on actual costs is
achieved through the transition of creating an initial cost estimate with UF to a final cost estimate with MF. One
aspect that had a significant impact on the estimates was the complexity of the work scope, as the evaluation
demonstrates how more challenging tasks would have a lower variance regarding cost as it was the case for the
infrastructure, while more straightforward work has a higher cost variance as reflected by the envelope cost. It was
also evident that the framework does not mitigate the overwhelming and tedious obstacles that come with the
operation of RSM.

6. CONCLUSIONS

Through this evaluation, it was concluded that the proposed framework represents an excellent tool for estimators to
follow specific steps that will assist them with the utilization of RSM and ultimately accomplish cost estimates that
can be more accurate to a certain extent. It is important to highlight that RSM still contains a lot of limitations, such
as lack of specific construction activities and engineering materials which significantly affects the accuracy of
estimates. Additionally, it is crucial to note that RSM is an efficient tool to assist estimators, but it will not replace
experiences in professional construction managers in the near future when it comes to making cost estimates of
construction projects.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Mr. Zhimin Yin, a PhD student of University of Alberta, Canada for providing data
and information in the residential building case.

REFERENCES

ASTM E1557-09 (2015) Standard Classification for Building Elements and Related Sitework UNIFORMAT II,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. Retrieved from: Website: www.astm.org

Charette, R. P; Marshall, H. E. (1999) Uniformat II Elemental Classification for Building Specification, Cost
Estimating, and Cost Analysis. U.S. Department of Commerce; Technology Administration; National
Institute of Standards and Technology. NISTIR 6389.

CSIResources (2018). About Masterformat. Website: www.csiresources.org

Retrieved from: https://www.csiresources.org/practice/standards/masterformat (accessed on, 01 May, 2018)

Globerson, S. (1994). Impact of various work-breakdown structures on project conceptualization.

International Journal of Project Management, 12(3), 165–171

Lu, Ming; Hasan, Tarequl; Hasan, Monjurul (2017) Comparative Study of Information and Masterformat for
construction Cost Estimating. Proceeding of International Conference on Leadership in Sustainable
Infrastructure. CSCE, Vancouver, Canada. . May 31- June 3, pp. 186-1 to 186-9.

Lu, Ming; Liu, Chang (2014) Crew Cost and Productivity Performance Benchmarking based on Commercial Cost
Estimating Databases. Proceeding of Construction Research Congress 2014, ASCE, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Master Format website (2017). Retrieved from: http://www.masterformat.com/

RSMeansonline (2018). Retrieved from: https://www.rsmeans.com/info/contact/about-us.aspx

View publication stats