Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 4253–4267

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Expert Systems with Applications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

Generalized linear model-based expert system for estimating the

cost of transportation projects
Jui-Sheng Chou *
Department of Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, 43 Sec. 4, Keelung Road, Taipei 106, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Timely effective cost management requires reliable cost estimates at every stage of project development.
Cost management While underestimation of transportation costs seems to be a global trend, improving early cost prediction
Generalized linear model accuracy in estimates is difficult. This paper presents a parametric estimating technique applied to Texas
Expert system highway projects using a set of project characteristics. Generalized linear models (GLM) of early quantity
Relational database prediction for geometry-related work activities, namely earthwork, pavement and traffic control were
Transportation projects
developed for continuous project cost tracking. The approach of cost breakdown demonstrates the poten-
tial to separate quantity uncertainty from price uncertainty for highway construction. The benefit of this
approach is to provide a platform for evolving the preliminary parametric cost estimates to a fully
detailed cost management as further information becomes available as the project progresses. During
project execution, managers are given opportunities to review the associated work activities and make
better decisions from the developed GLM-based estimating system. Compared to typical practice of
applying a gross cost per lane length during pre-project planning phase, the proposed approach with
the aid of the developed expert system provides more detailed basis and efficiency for tracking the effects
of changes within the project life cycle.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction of Transportation (DOTs) have experienced highly visible projects

Preliminary cost estimation is conceived as the most significant
starting process to influence the fate of a new transportation pro-
ject. The impact to cost variation for the stakeholders decreases
with the growing maturity of project planning and design. In prac-
tice, over- and under estimation of project costs are both problem-
atic. Inaccurate preliminary cost estimates for highway projects
deeply affect financial operations of these organizations in the Uni-
ted States due to marginal budgets. In addition, missed estimates
expose managers to attacks from the public and politicians, jeopar-
dizing the investments needed to solve transportation problems.
Poor estimates were blamed on lack of training and standard of
procedures, insufficient time available for estimation, incomplete
project information, and inexperienced team. It was concluded that
arbitrary changes in estimates by managers, design errors, scope
creep, market conditions and project delays were causes of cost
overruns (Akinci & Fischer, 1998; Akintoye, 1998; Anderson, Mole-
naar, & Schexnayder, 2007).
Preliminary planning is crucial to the viability of a project pro-
gressing beyond the initiation stage, yet little data are available to
develop an accurate budget (Bell, 1987). Many State Departments
* Tel.: +886 2 2737 6321; fax: +886 2 2737 6606.
E-mail address: ischou@mail.ntust.edu.tw
that have suffered from excessive cost overruns (GAO, 2002). Inac-
curate preliminary cost estimates for highway projects deeply af-
fect financial operations of these organizations in the United
States due to marginal budgets (Sanders, Maxwell, & Glagola,
1992). Many studies of project cost estimates have found the final
total cost incurred in designing and constructing projects of all
types almost always exceeds the amounts estimated (Schexnayder,
Weber, & Fiori, 2003). A study of 258 transportation infrastructure
projects among modernized countries led to the following observa-
tions (Flyvbjerg, Holm, & Buhl, 2002): (1) Costs are underestimated
in 9 out of 10 transportation infrastructure projects; (2) For road
projects, actual costs are on average 20% higher than estimated
costs with a standard deviation of 30%; (3) Cost underestimation
appears to be a global phenomenon.
Estimating accuracy is closely related to the extent of informa-
tion available at the time when the estimate is developed. The con-
ceptual estimate is often misleading because of the paucity of
available information. In particular, a stronger case should be made
for predicting and early quantity tracking for eliminating cost error
by better exploiting readily available recent district work item unit
prices. The ability to influence project cost is the highest at the ear-
liest stages, when scope is being defined (Duverlie & Castelain,
1999; Oberlender, 1998). As commitments are made, that ability
declines over the entire project delivery period. By the time the

0957-4174/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.03.017
4254 J.-S. Chou / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 4253–4267
design is underway, there is relatively little opportunity for affect-
ing the final cost. Thus, it is important to take control of project
costs early in the initiation phase.
2. Research objectives
The objective of this research is to develop an expert estimating
system for the early stage by formulating generalized linear mod-
els (GLM) incorporated within computing software for Texas high-
way construction, namely earthwork, pavement and traffic control.
The motivation is to assemble parametric costing of work items
following the highway construction specifications. Unlike the esti-
mation at detailed design stage, the parametric method can be
adopted with only conceptual configuration available. So far most
kinds of approaches avoid highly complex time consuming ‘‘wild
guesses” and generate acceptable preliminary cost estimates. They
do not exploit the accuracy of recent unit prices nor do they estab-
lish an item-level quantity formulation upon which a more accu-
rate, robust system could be built in the earliest phase.
Identifying causes of changes in estimates is difficult on transpor-
tation projects while underestimation of capital and operating
costs is common (Sanders et al., 1992). This study intended to build
statistical models that toggles project input information at project
initiation, and segregated unit prices from highway work item
costs. The analysis is based on the project database collected from
the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) during the period
of 2001–2003. The later projects in 2004 were randomly chosen for
model validation. An expert system using relational database was
developed to automate a series of quantity calculation, retrieval
and storage based on the developed quantity models. The concept
of this proposed architecture is to better exploit work item histor-
ical unit prices and provide a more seamless preliminary estimate
with quantity-based models for later on periodic adjustment. This
strategy enables continuity of item-level quantity tracking as pro-
jects evolve to later phases without the influence of price fluctua-
tion. The output, in the form of a report can be used as a starting
point for experienced engineers’ subsequent cost management
and better decisions.
3. Literature review
A wide range of parametric models for highway construction
costs can be found in the literature. For example, Saito, Sinha,
and Anderson (1991) proposed an analytical approach in develop-
ing statistical models for the estimation of bridge replacement
costs using project data of 279 bridges replaced between 1980
and 1985 by the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT).
They concluded that adding component cost models is better than
total bridge cost model. Likewise, Chengalur-Smith, Ballou, and
Pazer (1997) focused on the estimation of bridge rehabilitation
by using non-linear regression with the cost data collected in the
New York State Department of Transportation. The model ad-
dressed eight explanatory variables including region, bridge type,
deck area, substructure area, age, functional class, component
condition index, and completed work, to explain the response vari-
ables, component cost, subtotal costs, and unit cost respectively.
Whereas their approach was concerned with highly non-linear
relationships between cost and cost drivers and proved the total
cost regression models superior in explanatory power to the unit
cost modeling.
Bell (1987) developed multiple linear regression models for
preliminary cost estimating which can be used by Alabama High-
way Department (AHD) for long range cost forecasting. The total
project cost per mile is the function of a list of probable predictors
comprised of line items, such as quantities of work items per mile.
Six independent models have been built to accommodate six pro-
ject types as defined by AHD. The accuracy of estimates ranged
from ±17% to ±35% of the actual project cost.
Harbuck (2002) considered transit system as linear in nature
and presented the estimating procedure by breaking down the cost
categories that will be needed for the type of transportation project
being studied (Harbuck, 2002). The proposed approach is proper
when work items of typical cross-section over a given length of
alignment are available.
Sthapit and Mori (1994) modeled a parametric equation to esti-
mate highway earthwork cost in consideration of cutting depth
and cross slope, which acted as hill and slope factors respectively,
as well as soil type in the construction area. In preparation of esti-
mates, information of highway geometric alignment and geological
condition is needed to assess the factors and coefficient of soil type.
Sanders et al. (1992) used 1987–1988 urban bridge widening
projects as database to illustrate simple regression models for
work items which individually made up greater than 1% of the total
project cost. The cost of engineering, inspections, right-of-way, and
some other items normally associated with total cost were not in-
cluded in these models. Usually each bid contains more than hun-
dreds of line items, therefore a total project cost at conceptual
stages can be reasonably estimated by summing up the costs of a
few of major work items.
Wilmot and Cheng (2003) developed a cost model to estimate
future overall highway construction costs in Louisiana in terms
of a highway construction cost index. The authors divided the
overall model into five sub-models, each of which included one
dominant construction item as a predictor. They then determined
that an average growth rate of 3.3% per year in construction costs
in Louisiana was expected, based on the statistical analysis of 2827
highway and bridge contracts during the period of 1984–1987.
Trost and Oberlender (2003) established a parametric model
using which can predict the accuracy of early estimates based on
the estimate score for capital projects in the process industry.
The required contingency can be decided by rating scored for the
classified factors based on the experienced estimators.
Furthermore, many studies have investigated unit cost estimat-
ing relationships (CERs) between cost (dollar per lane length) and
plan quantity or between cost and cost drivers for building and
infrastructure construction using either statistical techniques or
neural networks (Al-Tabtabai, Alex, & Tantash, 1999; Bell, 1987;
Chengalur-Smith et al., 1997; Emsley, Lowe, Duff, Harding, & Hick-
son, 2002; Hegazy & Ayed, 1998; Herbsman, 1983; Jrade & Alkass,
2002; Lowe, Emsley, & Harding, 2006; Masi, 2003; Morcous, Bak-
houm, Taha, & El-Said, 2001; Phaobunjong & Popescu, 2003; Saito
et al., 1991; Sanders et al., 1992; Williams, 2005; Yu, 2006).
Hegazy and Ayed (1998) developed a parametric cost estimat-
ing model for highway projects using a neural network approach,
rather than using black-box commercial software. Factors used as
model inputs include description of project size, year of construc-
tion, project location, capacity, and other uncertainty-related fac-
tors. The networks weight-determining methods, simplex
optimization and back-propagation training compared to genetic
algorithms optimization were observed to produce smaller errors
to the 18 highway projects constructed in Newfoundland, Canada.
In this study, the use of the spreadsheet interface unraveled the
complicated analysis process and the total budget cost for the pro-
ject was output.
Morcous et al. (2001) used neural networks to estimate preli-
minary item-level quantity of concrete volume and prestressing
weight for highway bridges in Egypt. The estimate errors were
found to be within ±7.5% and ±11.5% for concrete volume and pres-
tressing weight respectively. Adeli and Wu (1998) formulated a
model to estimate the cost of reinforced-concrete (RC) pavement.
They collected 242 data samples from historical RC pavement
 J.-S. Chou / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 4253–4267
projects conducted by the Ohio Department of Transportation
(ODOT). Half of the data sets were randomly selected as training
data and the other half were used to validate the model. In the
illustrated example, only quantity information for RC pavement
was used as input data and the unit cost was used as an output var-
iable. The average error for predictive unit costs for pavement was
16.5% of average unit cost.
Al-Tabtabai et al. (1999) used neural networks to predict preli-
minary cost estimation of highway construction based on five ex-
perts’ judgment. The output of this model is the percentage
change in total cost based on the input of nine predominant fac-
tors: location, utilities, soil nature, type of consultant, detour con-
struction, hauling distance, financial condition, type of road, and
need. Williams (2005) developed regression and neural network
models with parameters of bid ratios to predict the completed cost
of the highway projects. The study showed that none of the best
performing models used the bidding ratios but the natural log of
the low bid as input parameter.
Some researchers recognize that cost estimates should not be
represented as a definitive value but rather as a range (Molenaar,
2005; Touran, 1993). By using Monte Carlo simulation, one can de-
velop a probabilistic cost estimating system under alternative sce-
narios. In this way, a range of cost estimates can be developed for a
variety of scenarios. In this case, an abundant amount of statistical
data is needed.
Molenaar (2005) presented a methodology developed by the
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for its
Cost Estimating Validation Process (CEVP) through nine case stud-
ies. The CEVP provides better understanding and communication
of the risks involved with mega highway projects for a more trans-
parent assessment of uncertainty (Molenaar, 2005). Based on the
concept that most construction project costs can be calculated by
combining fixed and variable cost components Touran (1993) used
probabilistic simulation of the variable cost components to estab-
lish a cumulative distribution function for the total project cost
which offered better insight into cost variability, aside from the
influence of subjective correlations between different cost compo-
nents (Touran, 1993). The author indicated that there was no need
to include every cost component in the project as random vari-
ables; therefore, only the desired cost elements which exhibited
the greatest amount of variability were estimated with simulation
technique.
Estimators should be involved in the bid analysis for a project
prior to award; this affords an opportunity to spot bidding trends
early, which may impact the award decision. A research report
pointed out that 31 DOTs generate conceptual estimates solely
based upon historic lane-mile cost averages for similar projects
(Schexnayder et al., 2003). There are a variety of estimating appli-
cations utilized in the State DOTs. Based on the findings, the re-
search classified the approaches into five categories: (1) lane-unit
length cost average; (2) conventional quantity-take-off and ad-
justed historical unit price; (3) component-level parametric esti-
mates with qualitative adjustment factors; (4) work item unit
price range according to quantity range estimates; (5) a mixed esti-
mates of above.
4. Challenges of preliminary cost estimates
Estimate accuracy is closely related to the extent of informa-
tion available at the time the estimate is developed. Thus develop-
ing accurate preliminary cost estimates is very challenging. The
use of historical bid prices is a relatively straightforward practice
and can yield good result if applied properly. However, it does not
mean that the average bid prices should represent the same con-
ditions for the estimating projects. The estimators must have the
4255
ability to reflect the fluctuation of prices due to market conditions,
time inflation, restricted working hours, political risk and un-
known geologic conditions in preparing estimates. Without cau-
tious utilization of post bid data, this practice will lead to an
inaccurate estimate. The conventional approach lacks of quantity
information and does not initiate the first quantity estimates until
90–95% of the design is completed. Quantity-based estimating
system enables periodic quantity adjustment as projects evolve
to later phases.
The quantity-based approach was implemented in this study to
split an item cost into two parts, measure of quantity and unit
price. The quantity of a work item which is deemed as no impact
by economic conditions and can be predicted with a number of
associated project characteristics with the aid of generalized linear
modeling. Then the readily unit price updated regularly by the DOT
can be applied in item quantity for developing accurate item-level
cost at early stages. With the use of information technology, the
statistical models can be incorporated within an expert estimating
system to generate a semi-detailed quantity-take-off report. This
output provides a platform for tracking the effects of changes dur-
ing project development. The GLM-based estimation enables peri-
odic quantity adjustment as projects evolve to later phases with a
new set of project characteristics.
5. Methodology
A transportation project is organized by a series of processes
undertaking to create a comfortable facility for the road users.
The processes can be broken into activities or work items to quan-
tify the labors, materials, equipment, project duration, quality and
other resources required to complete the project. To improve pre-
liminary estimates, sources of cost variability must be investigated.
This study separated the variance of item unit price from item
quantity to provide accurate estimates with regularly updated
bid prices within TxDOT.
The quantity models were developed from a set of project fea-
tures, functions, and characteristics mining from a notable of pro-
ject data to screen out significant variables and thereafter
summarized as future input basis for early estimate forecasting.
To streamline the estimating procedure, a computational tool is
built up to automate the item quantity prediction. Since the rela-
tionship between the work quantity and the parameters were
non-linear, the empirical analysis employed GLM by regressing a
translog quantity variable on a linear combination of non-quantity
numerical or categorical variables in log, interaction, or original
forms to established relationships between project characteristics
and associated item-level quantity. Explanatory features were ex-
tracted from Design and Construction Information System (DCIS),
one of the Texas nationwide databases, consisting of relational data
on project information, work program, project estimate, project fi-
nance, and contract letting tables.
5.1. Cost growth factors for infrastructure projects
The most common causes of cost growth for highway projects
can be divided into three groups, namely project factors, organiza-
tion factors, and estimate factors. Project cost performance is di-
rectly related to project conditions. These project factors include
changing economic or market conditions, project type, project
complexity, project location, project size, duration of construction
periods, scope changes, unforeseen engineering complications and
constructability challenges, construction accessibility, restricted
working hours, use of new technology, method of construction or
construction techniques, and experimental or research items and
special specifications or provisions (Akintoye & Fitzgerald, 2000;
4256 J.-S. Chou / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 4253–4267

Black, 1984; Odeck, 2004; Sanders et al., 1992; Wilmot & Cheng, A box plot of engineering quantity versus project type for
2003). embankment is shown in Fig. 1 for instance. The project types con-
Projects can be influenced as well by organization factors, sidered in this study include bridge replacement (BR), bridge wid-
including organizational capacity of the owner, designer, and/or ening and rehabilitation (BWR), interchange (INC), new location
contractor, contract type and context of contract, changes in regu- non-freeway (NNF), rehabilitation of existing roadway (RER), up-
latory requirements, disruption or discontinuity within the man- grade non-freeway (UGN), widening of freeway (WF), and widen-
agement team or local political leadership, lack of site familiarity ing of non-freeway (WNF). The right-hand side plot indeed
by the design team, expertise of the consultants involved in the displays an effective natural logarithmic transformation with
project, and poor communication between districts and head office approximately normal distribution for the originally positively
(Akintoye, 1998; Akintoye & Fitzgerald, 2000; Baloi & Price, 2003; skewed quantity values of most of the project types except BR
Schexnayder et al., 2003; Wilmot & Cheng, 2003). and UGN as shown in the left-hand side.
Many studies pointed out that quality and timing of the esti- Before finalizing the overall models development, a pilot data
mate significantly influence cost performance. These estimate fac- analysis was carried out on the excavation for widening of non-
tors include timing of estimate cost data versus timing of freeways (WNF) projects. Regression analysis was performed to
expenditure, estimator-related factors (e.g. cognitive biases), esti- compare the effects of project length multiplied by project width
mating team experience, quality of cost information, time allowed on engineering quantity for the original and transformed datasets
to prepare the estimate, wide variability in contractor’s (subcon- respectively. Scatter plots presented in Fig. 2 obviously indicated
tractors’) prices, lack of review of cost estimate by management, a significant alleviation on heteroscedasticity (non-equal variance)
lack of adequate guidelines for estimating, and estimators’ lack of that violates one of the statistical assumptions and the transform
data processing techniques (Akinci & Fischer, 1998; Akintoye & makes the fitting feasible. The goodness of fit (R2 = 0.599) indicates
Fitzgerald, 2000; Baloi & Price, 2003; Flyvbjerg et al., 2002; Trost that after transformation the 59.9% variance of engineering quan-
& Oberlender, 2003; Wilmot & Cheng, 2003). tity can be explained by the variance in total project area.
Based on the comprehensive analysis, a general parametric
5.2. Generalized linear model formulation function used in model development was then established as
shown below after a series of trial and error formulation with com-
In the preliminary analysis, several curve estimation models, pliance of statistical assumptions.
including linear, quadratic, compound, growth, exponential, cubic, 0   1
Pm P
n;m Pn P m
inverse, power, and logarithmic were tested to seek a better good- BY bi
n ðai Di Þ cij X i X j  /lj X i Dj
C
ness of fit. The coefficient of determination resulting from logarith- Y ¼ b0 @ ðX i Þ  e i¼1 i¼1;j¼1;i–j i¼1 j¼1
Ae ð1Þ
i¼1
mic transformation was found to be better than others in this
comprehensive analysis.

1400000 14.00
942
881 869
1200000 1,042 12.00
Quantity, 0.765m3 (1 cubic yard)

714 921
286 644 682
379
1000000 1,024 441 10.00 672
1,015
ln(Quantity)

1,009
800000 8.00
1,020 755

600000 6.00
1,012 27
1,040
400000 754 4.00
1,053 8
1,047 1,049
1,032
62 809 36
1,051 1,006 773
926
200000 881 742 1,045 1,052 2.00
869 989 1,035 1,029
1,018 1,038 31 26
284 1,019 188 1,034
728 682 1,008 1,001 950 807 968 2
687 732
860 676 1,010
1,025 1,007
0 814 878
648 967 0.00
832 770
729 907

BR BWR INC NNF RER UGN WF WNF BR BWR INCN NF RER UGN WF WNF
Project Type Project Type

Extreme outlier
° Mild outlier
The max. obsservation not outlier
3rd quartile

Median

1st quartile
The min. observation not outlier

Fig. 1. Box plot for embankment quantity.

 J.-S. Chou / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 4253–4267
700000.00 No. of data: 150
Quantity, 0.765 m3 (1 cubic yard)
600000.00
500000.00
400000.00
300000.00
200000.00
100000.00
0.00
0.005 00000.00 1000000.00 1500000.00 2000000.00 2500000.00 3000000.00
Project Length x Project Width, 0.093m2 (1square feet)
Original Dataset
Fig. 2. Scatter plots of excavation: quantity vs. total project area.
where Y is the response variable, work item quantity, as, bs,cs, /s
the estimated parameters, Xs the predictors representing numerical
data, e the exponential constant, Dj is the predictors representing
categorical data and e is the error term.
This parametric model is an extended type of non-linear rela-
tionship that has firm grounding in economic theory. It is called
the constant elasticity relationship or multiplicative relationship
and can be transformed into a linear model by a logarithmic trans-
formation (Albright, Winston, & Zappe, 2003; Neter, Kutner, Nac-
htsheim, & Wasserman, 1996; Saito et al., 1991). In this study, a
natural logarithm with base e (i.e. ln or loge) was used. The equa-
tion was transformed therefore into the following linear model:
lnðYÞ ¼ lnðb0 Þ þ b1 lnðX 1 Þ þ b2 lnðX 2 Þ þ    þ bn lnðX n Þ þ a1 D1
þ a2 D2 þ    þ am Dm þ c12 X 1 X 2 þ c13 X 1 X 3 þ   
þ cnm X n X m þ /11 X 1 D1 þ /12 X 1 D2 þ    þ /nm X n Dm þ lnðeÞ
Transformation can clearly reduce the impact of outliers and
help allay concerns about violating assumptions of normality and
homoscedasticity in regression analysis when raw data exhibit a
skewed pattern (Saito et al., 1991; Neter et al., 1996; Chengalur-
Smith et al., 1997; Phaobunjong & Popescu, 2003) while these
two assumptions were not nearly as crucial as the need for inde-
pendence. If a transformation is performed in a least squares
regression, the resulting statistical properties (e.g., best, linear,
unbiased estimates) are true only on the transformed values. Once
the results are ‘‘back-transformed” to the original units, these sta-
tistical niceties are lost (Bobko, 2001). Eq. (2) can be expressed as a
generalized linear regression model in terms of a linear combina-
tion of predictors as below:
Y 0 ¼ AX0 þ e0
where
Y0 ln(Y)
A ½lnðb0 Þb1 b2 ; . . . ; bn a1 ; . . . ; am c12 ; . . . ; cnm
/11 ; . . . ; /nm ; row coefficient vector
X0 ½1 lnðX 1 Þ lnðX 2 Þ; . . . ; lnðX n Þ D1 ;
. . . ; Dm X 1 X 2 ; . . . ; X n X m X 1 D1 ; . . . ; X n Dm T ; column
explanatory variable vector
e0 ln(e)
4257
14.00 No. of data: 150
R2 = 0.599
12.00
ln(Quantity)
10.00
8.00
6.00
10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00
ln(Project Length x Project Width)
Natural Logarithmic Transform
Cross-product interaction regression models based on Eq. (3)
were implemented in the later analyses to improve R2 and to ex-
plain interaction effects on the variability of the response variable.
When adding interaction terms to the regression models, caution
should be exercised on the existence of multicollinearities between
some of the predictor variables and some of the interactions terms.
In addition, when the number of explanatory variables in the
regression model is large, the potential number of interaction
terms can become very large. Therefore prior knowledge concern-
ing practical interpretation of the interaction terms that are most
likely to influence the response variable should be utilized when-
ever possible.
Stepwise regression using probability of F-test as entry (0.05)
and removal (0.10) criteria was employed throughout the model
development. Upon obtaining regression model results, several
assumptions ought to be revisited alongside hypothesis testing
ð2Þ for the regression model (F-test) and regression coefficients (t-test)
with 95% confidence interval.
An important part of linear regression modeling is checking
whether the required assumptions of linearity and i.i.d. (indepen-
dence and identical distribution) of observations are met. Although
the validity of the assumptions can never be entirely certain, there
are ways to check for gross violations by analyzing residuals. The
prevailing techniques to diagnose residuals include box plot, Q–Q
plot, scatter plot, partial regression plot, residuals versus predicted
values, etc. (Norusis, 2002). If the residuals are normally distrib-
uted, then there should be a linear relationship between the ex-
pected and observed cumulative probabilities.
Multicollinearity exists as a fairly strong linear relationship be-
tween two or more independent variables (Albright et al., 2003).
The degree to which the predictors are correlated among them-
ð3Þ selves can affect regression results and make estimation unstable.
The strength of collinearity among the independent variables in
the models was measured by a statistic called tolerance. The toler-
ance is the proportion of variability defined as 1  Ri2, where Ri2 is
the coefficient of determination of variable i when variable i is pre-
dicted from all other independent variables. SPSS (2003) suggests if
any of the tolerances are less than 0.1, multicollinearity may be a
problem (SPSS, 2003). In this study the predictors were excluded
to run the analysis again, once the suggested tolerances were
encountered.
4258 J.-S. Chou / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 4253–4267

After the needed checks have been taken to make sure the com-
pliance of statistical assumptions, the final step in the model-
building process is the validity of the predicted models. Model val-
idation usually involves checking the model against observed or
independent data (Neter et al., 1996). The validity of item-level
quantity-based models developed in this study was calibrated
through scatter plots of predicted versus observed values. In addi-
tion, predictive ability of models selected from studied work cate-
gories were checked through the collection of new highway
projects extracted from TxDOT.
6. Data collection and preprocessing
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) statewide
computer network, Design and Construction Information System
(DCIS), allows all districts and Austin headquarters to maintain
project data in a standardized format. The raw data were collected
with the assistance of the TxDOT Austin TPP (Transportation Plan-
ning and Programming) Division. While a few projects had incom-
plete data, the DCIS was found to contain extremely useful and
reliable data. Thus, the database system was used as the data re-
source for this research. By using proven statistical models with
the cost data, this study attempts to develop quantity models as
an alternative approach for preliminary construction cost
estimation.
The statistical models were derived from analysis of quantities
and early quantity drivers from historical projects. Eighty-eight
project characteristics that may affect the variance of item-level
quantity based on the reviews and literature findings were ex-
tracted from DCIS with more than five hundred thousand projects.
Unit bid prices associated with corresponding work items were
segregated in the data analysis. Hence, up-to-date unit prices
which have to be obtained beforehand can be employed in the sys-
tem based on the current market condition and inflation.

Table 1
Final variables considered in model development

Variable name Description Type (level)

 Response variable
1. EngQuantity – Engineering quantity for the specific work item Numerical
 Explanatory variables
1. AdtPresent – The present average daily traffic using the facility, in vehicle/day Numerical
2. DESSpeed – Designed speed for traffic of highway Numerical
3. LaneWidth – Average lane width between lane markings of proposed or existing facilities, in ft. Numerical
4. MNLNNo – Main lane number to be constructed, repaired, improved, or upgraded
5. NHS – Indicate if the highway is on the approved National Highway System Dichotomous (Yes/No)
6. NoTrucks – No. of trucks on the existing highway Numerical
7. PercentTrucks – Percent trucks in the existing roadway, in % Numerical
8. PL – Total roadway length, in miles Numerical
9. ProjType – Eight project types for highway constructiona Nominal
10. PW – Project width, derived from multiplying lane width by no. of main lanes plus shoulder widths Numerical
11. ShoulderWidth – Shoulder width of the main lanes Numerical
12. Terrain – Terrain in the construction area: Mountainous/Rolling/Level Nominal
13. TrunkSysFlag – Indicate if the highway is on the trunk system Dichotomous (Yes/No)
14. UrbanRural – Population code where the project located Dichotomous (Urban/Rural)
 Interaction terms
1. ProjType*PL – To measure if the project types have interactive effects of project length on the response variable Numerical
2. ProjType*PW – To measure if the project types have interactive effects of project width on the response variable Numerical
3. UrbanRural*DESSpeed – To measure if the project location has interactive effects of designed speed on the response variable Numerical
4.UrbanRural*PercentTrucks – To measure if the project location has interactive effects of percent trucks on the response variable Numerical
 Identification variable
1. CSJ – Control-section-job number which is used to identify projects within Texas String
a
Project types can be referred to Fig. 1.

Table 2
Standard work items for geometry-related activity

Geometry-related activity Item Work item Scope of Work

Earthwork and landscape
Subgrade treatments and
base
Surface courses and
pavement
Lighting, signing,
markings and signals
no.
100 Preparing right of way Remove and dispose of all obstructions
110 Excavation Earth cuts and rock cuts
132 Embankment Furnish, place and compact materials for construction of roadways and embankments
247 Flexible base Construct a foundation course composed of flexible base
260 Lime treatment for materials used as Mix and compact lime, water, and subgrade in the roadway
subgrade (road mixed)
276 Lime treatment for base courses (road Mix and compact lime, water, and base in the roadway
mixed)
316 Surface treatments Construct a surface treatment consisting of 1 or more applications of a single layer of
asphalt material covered with a single layer of aggregate
354 Planning and texturing pavement Plan, or plane and texture, existing asphalt concrete pavement, asphalt-stabilized base,
or concrete pavement. Texture bridge deck surfaces
360 Concrete pavement Construct hydraulic cement concrete pavement with or without curbs on the concrete
pavement
662 Work zone pavement markings Furnish, place, and maintain work zone pavement
 J.-S. Chou / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 4253–4267 4259

Table 3
Descriptive statistics of highway projects completed in FY01–FY03

Project No. of Total obligated Break-point item No. of major work items (standard geometry- No. of roll-up work Total No. of work items
typea projects amount (USD) cost% b related items) items employed
BR 319 499,705,405 1.51 5 332 337
BWR 48 90,280,968 0.43 7 218 219
INC 50 1,215,587,973 0.78 6 428 434
NNF 41 318,574,607 6.24 3 251 254
RER 431 1,672,013,465 3.38 3 462 465
UGN 43 160,004,564 4.35 3 208 211
WF 36 1,202,484,985 1.35 6 430 436
WNF 150 1,342,092,319 4.54 3 448 451
Total 1118 6,500,744,286
a
Refer to the explanation of Fig. 1 for full name of each project type.
b
The break-point item cost % is the minimum cost percentage of the cost item among the major work items.

Table 4
Cost percentages of frequently used standard work items in each project type (Unit in %)

Activity Line Item Work item description BR BWR INC NNF RER UGN WF WNF
no.
Earthwork and landscape 1 100 Preparing right of way 1.51 0.49
2 110 Excavation 1.67 1.28 1.69 8.03 4.35 2.46
3 132 Embankment 3.09 1.72 3.62 6.24 4.36 2.94 4.54
Subtotal of cost percentage (%) 6.27 4.11 5.31 14.27 – 8.71 5.40 4.54
Subgrade treatments and 4 247 Flexible base 2.62 1.05 2.41 7.18 8.52 14.20 2.86 6.41
base 5 260 Lime treatment for materials used as 0.99 1.37
subgrade (road mixed)
6 276 Lime treatment for base courses (road 0.78 1.35
mixed)
Subtotal of cost percentage (%) 2.62 1.05 4.18 7.18 8.52 14.20 5.58 6.41
Surface courses and 7 316 Surface treatments 3.38
pavement 8 354 Planning and texturing pavement 0.66
9 360 Concrete pavement 1.55 7.60 6.20 8.53 9.31 11.17
Subtotal of cost percentage (%) 2.31 8.26 6.20 – 11.91 – 9.31 11.17
Lighting, signing, markings 10 662 Work zone pavement markings 0.43
and signals Subtotal of cost percentage (%) – 0.86 – – – – – –
Cumulative cost percentage of standard work items 14.10 18.15 19.85 21.45 20.43 22.91 20.29 22.66
Cost percentage of non-standard work items (roll-up work items) 85.90 81.85 80.15 78.55 79.57 77.09 79.71 77.34

Table 5
Parametric quantity estimating models with correspondent unit and adjusted R2

Item no. Parametric quantity estimating modela Unit Adjusted R2

1.0600.639RER0.712BWR0.590INC0.422NNF 0.45INC+0.363WF 0.044 9.415+2.208NNF+1.221WNF
100 Q100 = (PL) (PW) (PercentTrucks  AdtPresent) e 100 Station 0.839
110 Q110 = (PL)1.0600.639RER0.712BWR0.590INC0.422NNF(PW)0.456INC+0.363WF(PercentTrucks  AdtPresent)0.044 e8.215+2.208NNF+1.221WNF CY 0.640
132 Q132 = (PL)1.4800.954RER1.031BWR1.091INC0.898UGN0.788WNF0.801NNF0.828WF(PW)0.382(PercentTrucks  CY 0.568
AdtPresent)0.103 e8.1252.036RER+0.545INC+0.367TrunkSysFlag
247 Q247 = (PL)1.0610.851NNF0.793BWR0.610INC0.234RER+1.667WF(PW)0.273WNF+0.289NNF e8.719+1.858INC CY 0.767
260 Q260 = (PL)0.716+0.590WF(PercentTrucks  AdtPresent)0.063 e10.6010.596RER SY 0.541
276 Q276 = (PL)0.562+1.617WNF(PercentTrucks  AdtPresent)0.194 e10.1242.504WNF SY 0.724
316 Q316 = (PL)1.127WNF+1.014RER+0.997UGN(PW)0.062RER e8.215 CY 0.698
354 Q354 = (PL)0.54(PW)1.465 e3.8620.944TrunkSysFlag SY 0.300
360 Q360 = (PL)1.01.472UGN0.628INC1.039BWR0.610NNF0.412RER(PW)0.908 e6.384+0.384NHS SY 0.556
662 Q662 = (PL)0.818RER+0.897UGN+0.825WNF(PW)0.6350.49RER e7.254+0.952UGN+0.672WNF LF 0.455
a 3
Q100 is the quantity of preparing right of way, 30.48 m (100-ft. station), Q110 the quantity of excavation, 0.765 m (1 cubic yard), Q132 the quantity of embankment,
0.765 m3 (1 cubic yard), Q247 the quantity of flexible base, 0.765 m3 (1 cubic yard), Q260 the quantity of lime treatment for materials used as subgrade (road mixed), 0.836 m2
(1 square yard), Q276 the quantity of lime treatment for base courses (road mixed), 0.836 m2 (1 square yard), Q316 the quantity of surface treatments, 0.765 m3 (1 cubic yard),
Q354 the quantity of planning and texturing pavement, 0.836 m2 (1 square yard), Q360 the quantity of concrete pavement, 0.836 m2 (1 square yard), Q662 the quantity of work
zone pavement markings, 0.305 m (1 linear foot), PL the project length, 1.609 km (1 mile), PW the project width, 0.305 m (1 linear foot), BR the bridge replacement (reference
category in statistical analysis), BWR the bridge widening or rehabilitation, INC the Interchange, NNF the new location non-freeway, RER the rehabilitation of existing road,
UGN the upgrade to non-freeway standards, WF the widen freeway, WNF the widen non-freeway, PercentTrucks the percent trucks, (%), AdtPresent the present average daily
traffic, vehicle/day, TrunkSysFlag the trunk system flag (yes = 1; no = 0) and UrbanRural is the project location (urban = 1; rural = 0).

6.1. Variables employed in the statistical analysis
Candidate predictors were selected based on the findings from
literature, interviews, and available data. Since cost estimates are
non-negative values and are positively skewed, logarithmic trans-
formation for the raw data was used to alleviate the violation of
normality assumption of cost data. The final valid parameters used
in the analysis along with the interaction terms for the model
development are listed in Table 1.
This paper focuses on a variety of highway project types as de-
scribed previously for the geometry-related activities: (a) Earth-
work and landscape; (b) Subgrade treatments and base; (c)
4260 J.-S. Chou / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 4253–4267

100: Preparing Right of Way 110: Excavation (Sample Size = 1229)

(Sample Size = 795) (Chou et al. 2006)
14

Unstandardized Predicted Value

Unstandardized Predicted Value

6
12

10
4

2
6

4
0 R Sq Linear = 0.65
R Sq Linear = 0.841
2

0 2 4 6 0 5 10 15
LN_EngQuantity LN_EngQuantity

132: Embankment 247: Flexible Base (Sample Size = 492)

(Sample Size = 1053) (Chou et al. 2006)
14
12
Unstandardized Predicted Value
Unstandardized Predicted Value

12
10

10
8

8
6

4 6
R Sq Linear = 0.575 R Sq Linear = 0.772

2 4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
LN_EngQuantity LN_EngQuantity

260: Lime Treatment for Materials used as Subgrade 276: Lime Treatment for Base Courses
(Sample Size = 363) (Sample Size = 33)
14 14
Unstandardized Predicted Value

Unstandardized Predicted Value

12
12

10

10
8

8
6
R Sq Linear = 0.546
R Sq Linear = 0.716

4
6
6 8 10 12 14
4 6 8 10 12 14
LN_EngQuantity
LN_EngQuantity

Fig. 3. Predicted values of logarithmic engineering quantity vs. observed values for standard work items: 100, 110, 132, 247, 260, and 276 (dashed lines: 95% confidence
interval; solid line: fit line) 100: preparing right of way (sample size = 795) 110: excavation (sample size = 1229) (Chou et al., 2006) 132: embankment (sample size = 1053)
247: flexible base (sample size = 492) (Chou et al., 2006) 260: lime treatment for materials used as subgrade (sample size = 363) 276: lime treatment for base courses (sample
size = 33).
 J.-S. Chou / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 4253–4267 4261

Surface courses and pavement; (d) Lighting, signing, markings and
signals. Quantity models for each activity are shown in the follow-
ing section. Specific descriptions for the geometry-related work
items are listed in Table 2.
6.2. Data description
The listing of activities involved in the project type could be
very complicated. A study argued that the bill of quantities (BoQ)
method is cumbersome to list all the items of work which draws
the estimators’ all attention at the preliminary stages while there
should be some time saved to survey early project information
available and put efforts on the cost significant items simulta-
neously (Munns & Al-Haimus, 2000). Pareto Analysis stated an
80/20 principle indicating that 80% of problems are often due to
20% of the causes (PMI, 2004). To identify the significantly few con-
tributors that account for the most of the overall project cost, stan-
dard geometry-related work items based on 80/20 rule were
screened out to help and initiate preliminary quantity-based esti-
mates. The resulting number of top 20 standard and roll-up work
items employed in classified project types with the total let
amount is summarized in Table 3.
Take widen freeway as an example, there were 436 work items
of which 6 were top 20 work items of geometry-related activities.
Break-point item cost determination is equal to the particular item
cost consumed in FY01–FY03 divided by the total obligated
amount for that specific project type. Roll-up work items consti-
tuted hundreds of work items. Once quantities for each standard
item can be estimated, a project preliminary estimating cost can
be determined on the basis of historical statistical analysis. Table
4 presents the vital few contributions of the most frequently used
items for each project type. The blank cells represent cost percent-
age of that work item is comparably small to account for the pro-
ject type based on the observations from historical project data.
6.3. Data inspection and manipulation
This research is basically a retrospective study by analyzing his-
torical database with statistical techniques to discover trends and
to document lessons learned. In order to explore these data,

316: Surface Treatments 354: Planning and Texturing Pavement

(Sample Size = 458) (Sample Size = 214)
9 12

8
Unstandardized Predicted Value

Unstandardized Predicted Value

11
7

10
6

5
9

4
8
3 R Sq Linear = 0.699 R Sq Linear = 0.31

2 7
2 4 6 8 10 6 8 10 12 14
LN_EngQuantity LN_EngQuantity

360: Concrete Pavement 662: Work Zone Pavement Markings

(Sample Size = 188) (Sample Size = 522)
14 13
Unstandardized Predicted Value

Unstandardized Predicted Value

12
12

11
10

10

8
9

6
8
R Sq Linear = 0.582 R Sq Linear = 0.464

4 7
4 6 8 10 12 14 6 8 10 12 14
LN_EngQuantity LN_EngQuantity

Fig. 4. Predicted values of logarithmic engineering quantity vs. observed values for standard work items: 316, 354, 360, and 662 (dashed lines: 95% confidence interval; solid
line: fit line) 316: surface treatments (sample size = 458) 354: planning and texturing pavement (sample size = 214) 360: concrete pavement (sample size = 188) 662: work
zone pavement markings (sample size = 522).
4262 J.-S. Chou / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 4253–4267

pattern recognition using descriptive statistics, box plots, scatter Table 6

plots, and data transformation are adopted to discover features Prediction accuracy of item cost for new data sets

from seemingly trivial data. Data inspection allows the researcher Work category Item Project CSJ % % Error
to observe the quality of the data and to find patterns. Few data no. Error range
were found to be a mixture of metric and English units and there- Earthwork and landscape (n = 15) 132 019503062 8.0 23.0
fore were omitted in the very beginning. Although categorical vari- 070001024 .3 j
ables were collected, these discrete variables were converted to 070001025 22.9 +22.9
073002035 13.2
continuous ones by using dummy indicators for quantitative mod- 083311019 23.0
eling. Recoding was executed on fields for national highway sys- 090132018 20.9
tem, trunk system flag, project type, project location, terrain, and 090248462 7.8
main lane type. The last step in data manipulation was to compute 090824038 1.1
090828011 15.8
and transform needed predictors for regression analysis. For cate-
091712055 13.0
gorical data, dummy variables were created as well as interaction 091811034 3.6
terms to account for the likely effects on the dependent variable. 091811037 6.0
091811042 10.8
091846092 9.9
092323012 11.4
7. Presentation and validation of parametric estimating models
Average prediction % error:
0.63%
Front-end parametric equations for work items were derived by
Subgrade treatments and base (n = 8) 247 006502045 .5 11.7
regressing historical quantities on aforementioned predictors. The 008703026 4.3 j
fitted models were statistically significant using F-test at the 95% 010908037 4.5 +24.6
confidence interval with correspondent coefficients of determina- 014402040 5.2
068301069 10.1
tion. The regression coefficients of all the fitted models were indi-
100601052 24.6
vidually tested with t-value and were to be found significantly 137802022 12.8
different from zero at the 95% confidence interval. Table 5 shows 250601021 11.7
only representative items for each category with adjusted R2 Average prediction % error: 2.9%
values. Lighting, signing, markings, and 662 005001060 15.7 15.9
signals (n = 14) 006502045 2.1 j
7.1. Model validation 007004026 2.0 +10.3
008703026 5.9
010908037 1.1
The validity of the general linear models were inspected 014402040 3.7
through scatter plots of the predicted versus historical values as 068301069 3.9
shown in Figs. 3 and 4. The derived predictive models were cali- 090248575 10.3
090506029 8.3
brated in terms of goodness of fit (R2 values). From the figures,
091512366 7.8
most of the predicted and observed values cluster approximately 097802057 15.9
around the diagonal line. These findings are more obvious for pre- 100601052 8.6
paring right of way, flexible base, lime treatment for base courses, 137802022 6.2
and surface treatment. 250601021 13.4
Average prediction % error: 5.6%
The accuracy of model prediction was checked through the col-
lection of new projects to be examined in terms of whether or not
the regression models developed from the earlier data are still
applicable for other projects. The new data including 30 projects 5.6%. For individual observation, the prediction errors are be-
that 14 from bridge replacement (BR) and 16 from widen non-free- tween 23.0% and +24.6%. These percentage error ranges meet
way (WNF) were randomly extracted from the 2004 contract let- the accuracy suggested by CII and AACE considered preliminary
tings contained in DCIS provided by the TxDOT Transportation estimates.
Planning and Programming (TPP) division. Not all modeled work
items were presented in these randomly selected projects. The pre- 8. Discussion
diction abilities of quantity models were checked by comparing the
predicted item quantity computed against the actual historical The average R2 value of the presented quantity models is 0.61.
quantity recorded. The results of selected work items can be seen In summary, the quality of the data was sufficient to develop pre-
in Table 6. dictive models with moderate high coefficients of determination.
It practice, it is not expected that the predicted quantity is ex- The derived quantity models with corresponding unit prices for a
actly equal to the actual quantity during the early stages. Instead, specific project type as shown in Table 4 can be summed up and
an average value with given parameters is obtained as a best point then divided by a fixed percentage associated with each project
estimate produced by the statistical model. This study assumes type to produce a preliminary cost estimate. For instance, the stan-
that the unit price is segregated from the quantity and the same dard work items in the RER project type historically over the last
unit price for each work item was used in the model validation. three years comprised 20.43% of total project costs. Therefore,
Therefore, the examination of quantity accuracy is similar to that the preliminary cost estimates for RER can be assumed to be the
of cost accuracy. The Construction Industry Institute (CII) has pub- summation of estimated costs for individual standard work items
lished recommended practices regarding preliminary estimate divided by the percentage of a project type and adding a contin-
classes with accuracy from ±30% to ±50% (Trost, 1998). The Associ- gency based upon the perceived level of uncertainty.
ation for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International
(AACE, 1997) suggested the earliest two classes of cost estimate 9. GLM-based expert system for cost estimation
in the range of 30% to +100%. The validation results indicate that
the quantity models performed well for the new highway projects An automated expert system was developed by utilizing the
examined with average prediction errors ranging from 0.63% to aforementioned generalized linear models. Since TxDOT updates
 J.-S. Chou / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 4253–4267 4263

unit bid prices every month, the system can incorporate the lat-
est unit prices for the vital items. The remaining work activities
that can be identified as more information acquired are modeled
as single roll-up item with a percentage cost markup at this
stage.
9.1. System flow
Based upon user selection of project type, the software program
generates a list of associated standard work items. The system then
requires the user to input project basis information, which is suffi-

Preview/Customize/Print
Estimating Results
Estimator
Estimating report
Step 1: Input or select CSJ
Track previous estimate created before
Enter Step 2: View/customize
system estimating reports and
Go back
ready to print out
----------------------------------
Produce a semi-detailed Next page
PILCES: Main Menu estimating report for paper trail

Option 1: Create new

estimate
Option 2: Track previous
estimate
Option 3: Exit
Item bank & statistical model library
Query standard work items,
unit prices & call associated models
using SQL & Programming

Graphical user Project Information

interface
Create new estimate Create New Estimate
Select Project Type:
Go back
----------------------
BR, BWR, INC, NNF,
RER, UGN, WF, WNF
Select BR
Step 1: Input basic parameters
Select BWR Step 2: Calculate Preliminary
Select INC Quantity and Unit Price
.
Step 3: Save to database and go
. . to next page
. -----------------------------------
Select WNF
. Required Project Information:
Project Type; Your name; CSJ;
Go back
. Estimating date, Project length,
Average daily traffic, etc.

Go back

Fig. 5. System flow for the automatic expert system.

Fig. 6. Project type selection window.

4264 J.-S. Chou / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 4253–4267

Fig. 7. Example of input data for widen freeway project.

Fig. 8. Windows for preview, customize, and print preliminary cost estimating results.
 J.-S. Chou / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 4253–4267 4265

cient for the quantities calling statistical functions to be calculated.
Unit prices are then applied to the quantities. The final result is a
semi-detailed preliminary cost estimate with a listing of basis
information, item description, item quantity and unit, unit price,
item cost and preliminary total project cost. The report screen al-
lows the user to print out or save the item-level estimates includ-
ing basis project information. The user can at any time view and
update previous estimates. For long-term use, the database system
is extensible, allowing adding more work items, updated statistical
quantity models and related unit prices. The information flow of
expert system for cost estimation is shown in Fig. 5.
9.2. PILCES program
To transform the estimating models into user-friendly applica-
tions, a prototype Preliminary Item-level Cost Estimating System
(PILCES) was developed with the aid of computer programming.
The design concept driving the development of this automated

Fig. 9. Sample screen shot of estimating report.

4266 J.-S. Chou / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 4253–4267
system was to exploit work item historical unit prices rather to
continue to speculate based on subjective experience and initiate
preliminary estimates with quantity-based models. This system
enables subsequent item-level quantity growth tracking with a pa-
per trail as the project evolves to the next development phase.
As the user proceeds, the system displays a graphical interface.
The user can select to create a new estimate, track a previous esti-
mate or exit the system. Once the user enters the system and se-
lects ‘‘Create New Estimate”, the program prompts the users to
select a project type as shown in Fig. 6. The graphical interface of-
fers the users a selection among eight project types. Within the
system, a list of major work items is generated through structured
query language (SQL) based on project type.
Upon selection of a project, the program requests project basis
information as input parameters for preliminary cost estimation.
A sample input is illustrated in Fig. 7 compiled from the analysis
results in this study. A message box pops up once the quantity
and unit price calculation is completed successfully with the pro-
vided information upon clicking the calculating button.
As the user proceeds to the next page, the computer program
generates a list of major work items related to the selected project.
In this window, the user can preview preliminary cost estimating
results by selecting or inputting control section job (CSJ) number
as shown in Fig. 8.
The user can export this output into other software applications
or directly as a report as shown in Fig. 9. For other project types,
this program generates similar screens and various outputs in
the same format.
10. Conclusions
In creating conceptual estimates, 62% of US DOTs use estimating
cost data that are based solely upon historic lane-mile cost aver-
ages for similar projects (Schexnayder et al., 2003). Often for infra-
structure projects, they use only one parameter, historical square-
foot or square-meter cost data. This study proposed an alternative
solution by employing generalized linear models for transportation
construction which separate from fluctuated unit prices and ex-
pected to involve more project’s unique characteristics.
This research contributed to the enhancement of TxDOT’s pres-
ent approach to preliminary cost estimating. Statistical techniques
were employed to identify the sources of quantity variability that
influence the quantities for earthwork and landscape, subgrade
treatments and base, surface courses and pavement, and lighting,
signing, markings and signals that are known at the time of devel-
oping the initial estimate for eight infrastructure project types. The
significant factors were found to pertain to highway geometry such
as project length, proposed main lane number, lane width, shoul-
der width, and project width.
In addition, other basis project functions or features included
truck percentage measured on the road, average daily traffic, pro-
ject type, national highway system, and designed speed for traffic
of highway. Among the factors mentioned above, interaction ef-
fects were also considered for the highway construction estimates.
Interestingly whether the project location is in the rural or urban
areas appeared not to have significant difference on work quantity
estimates based on the analysis results. All of these parameters are
readily accessible early during project definition without requiring
detailed information, such as the geometric design drawings,
reducing the potential time consuming estimation and increase
cost effectiveness.
By transforming the models into a user-friendly application, the
research contributes to facilitate early and continuous quantity-
tracking and easy parameter documentation for subsequent use.
The prototype expert system for transportation cost estimation
can automatically predict project elements and item quantities,
and track changes over project life. The program was developed
in the form of a collection of relational tables. Preliminary cost esti-
mate information can be extracted in a consistent format from the
relational data warehouse for further analysis.(Rob & Coronel,
2007). This system enables subsequent quantity growth tracking
with minimal effort and minimal information, and leaves a docu-
mentation trail for early estimate input parameters. The stored
information can also be used for cost long-range management
and control. Over time and with good documentation, feedback
from projects can be used to improve the prediction models.
The primary advantage of separate quantity uncertainty from
unit price uncertainty is to remove the consideration of the regio-
nal cost conversion and fluctuated market rates. Therefore, the po-
tential influence of unit price-related drivers in the variance of
item cost was reduced. Instead of making wild guesses, the item
unit price can be easily determined through the three lowest bids
recently which are usually posted in public on the agencies’
website.
Estimates made during conceptual planning of project scope
definition usually contribute to inaccurate estimates due to lack
of sufficient project information. Inaccurate estimates may be
amplified when prepared by inexperienced estimators or with poor
procedures and tools. In practice, estimators are highly dependent
on past bid data to predict future highway budgets in preliminary
planning. Therefore, the models developed in this study should be
utilized with caution and must be updated regularly as new project
data accumulating to an extent.
This paper presented a development of an expert system with
statistical models embedded that takes advantage of the historical
close-out data to predict the cost of a work item. At project incep-
tion this system produces preliminary estimates and provides an
opportunity for periodic quantity and price adjustment till design
completion. The estimating models developed in this study should
be applied with caution to initiate quantity estimates in other
states.
Acknowledgements
This study was based on a research project funded by the Texas
Department of Transportation (TxDOT). The author gratefully
acknowledges the historical project information provided by the
Texas Transportation Planning and Programming Office. In addi-
tion, the author would also like to dedicate heartfelt gratitude to
Taiwan National Science Council whose sponsorship in part made
this research work continued.
References
AACE. (1997). Recommended Practice No. 17R-97: Cost estimate classification system.
AACE, Inc.
Adeli, H., & Wu, M. (1998). Regularization neural network for construction cost
estimation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(1), 18–24.
Akinci, B., & Fischer, M. (1998). Factors affecting contractors’ risk of cost
overburden. Journal of Management in Engineering, 14(1), 67–76.
Akintoye, A. (1998). Analysis of factors influencing project cost estimating practice.
Construction Management and Economics, 18, 77–89.
Akintoye, A., & Fitzgerald, E. (2000). A survey of current cost estimating practices in
the UK. Construction Management and Economics, 18, 161–172.
Albright, S. C., Winston, W., & Zappe, C. J. (2003). Data analysis and decision making
with Microsoft Excel. CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Al-Tabtabai, H., Alex, A. P., & Tantash, M. (1999). Preliminary cost estimation of
highway construction using neural networks. Cost Engineering, 41(3), 19–24.
Anderson, S., Molenaar, K., & Schexnayder, C. (2007). Guidance for cost estimation
and management for highway projects during planning, programming, and
preconstruction. NCHRP Report 574. Washington, DC: National Cooperative
Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board.
Baloi, D., & Price, A. D. F. (2003). Modelling global risk factors affecting construction
cost performance. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 261–269.
Bell, L. C., & Bozai, G. A. (1987). Preliminary cost estimating for highway
construction projects. AACE Transactions, C.6.1–C.6.4.
 J.-S. Chou / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 4253–4267
Black, J .H. (1984). Application of parametric estimating to cost engineering. AACE
Transactions, B.10.1–B.10.5.
Bobko, P. (2001). Correlation and regression applications for industrial organizational
psychology and management. CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Chengalur-Smith, I. N., Ballou, D. P., & Pazer, H. L. (1997). Modeling the costs of
bridge rehabilitation. Transportation Research Part A, 31(4), 281–293.
Chou, J.-S., Peng, M., Persad, K. R., & O’Connor, J. T. (2006). Quantity-based approach
to preliminary cost estimates for highway projects. Transportation Research
Record (1946), 22–30.
Duverlie, P., & Castelain, J. M. (1999). Cost estimation during design step:
Parametric method versus case based reasoning method. International Journal
of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 15(12), 895–906.
Emsley, M. W., Lowe, D. J., Duff, A. R., Harding, A., & Hickson, A. (2002). Data modeling
and the application of a neural network approach to the prediction of total
construction costs. Construction Management and Economics, 20(6), 465–472.
Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M. S., & Buhl, S. (2002). Underestimating costs in public works
projects – Error or Lie? Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(3),
279–295.
GAO. (2002). Transportation infrastructure: Cost and oversight issues on major
highway and bridge projects. GAO-02-702T. Washington, DC: United States
General Accounting Office.
Harbuck, R. H. (2002). Using models in parametric estimating for transportation
projects. AACE International Transactions, EST.05(ES51), EST.05.1–EST.05.09.
Hegazy, T., & Ayed, A. (1998). Neural network model for parametric cost estimation
of highway projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(3),
210–218.
Herbsman, Z. (1983). Long-range forecasting highway construction costs. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 109(4), 423–435.
Jrade, A., & Alkass, S. (2002). An integrated system for conceptual cost estimating of
building projects. Cost Engineering, 44(10), 28–35.
Lowe, D. J., Emsley, M. W., & Harding, A. (2006). Predicting construction cost using
multiple regression techniques. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 132(7), 750–758.
Masi, J. G. (2003). Development and maintenance of a parametric building cost
estimating system. Cost Engineering, 45(2), 33–37.
Molenaar, K. R. (2005). Programmatic cost risk analysis for highway megaprojects.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(3), 343–353.
Morcous, G., Bakhoum, M. M., Taha, M. A., & El-Said, M. (2001). Preliminary quantity
estimate of highway bridges using neural networks. In Proceedings of the sixth
international conference on the application of artificial intelligence to civil and
structural engineering computing (pp. 51–52).
4267
Munns, A. K., & Al-Haimus, K. M. (2000). Estimating using cost significant global
cost models. Construction Management and Economics, 18(5), 587–598.
Norusis, M.J. (2002). SPSS 11.0 Guide to Data Analysis, Prentice Hall.
Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Wasserman, W. (1996). Applied linear
statistical models. Irwin.
Oberlender, G. D. (1998). Improving early estimates-best practices guide. construction
industry institute (Implementation Resource 131-2), Austin, TX.
Odeck, J. (2004). Cost overruns in road construction – what are their sizes and
determinants? Transport Policy, 11(1), 43–53.
Phaobunjong, K., & Popescu, C. M. (2003). Parametric cost estimating model for
buildings. AACE International Transaction, EST.13.1–EST.13.11.
PMI. (2004). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK Guide)
(3rd ed.). Project Management Institute.
Rob, P., & Coronel, C. (2007). In Database systems: Design, implementation, &
management. Thomson Course Technology.
Saito, M., Sinha, K. C., & Anderson, V. L. (1991). Statistical models for the estimation
of bridge replacement costs. Transportation Research Part A, 25A(6), 339–
350.
Sanders, S. R., Maxwell, R. R., & Glagola, C. R. (1992). Preliminary estimating models
for infrastructure projects. Cost Engineering, 34(8), 7–13.
Schexnayder, C. J., Weber, S. L., & Fiori, C. (2003). Project cost estimating: A synthesis
of highway practice. national cooperative research program, Transportation
Research Board.
SPSS. (2003). SPSS for windows, release 12.0.0. Statistical Package for Social Sciences.
Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Sthapit, N., & Mori, H. (1994). Model to estimate highway earthwork cost in Nepal.
Journal of Transportation Engineering, 120(3), 498–504.
Touran, A. (1993). Probabilistic cost estimating with subjective correlations. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, 119(1), 58–71.
Trost, S. M. (1998). A quantitative model for predicting the accuracy of early cost
estimates for construction projects in the process industry, Ph.D. Dissertation,
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.
Trost, S. M., & Oberlender, G. D. (2003). Predicting accuracy of early cost estimates
using factor analysis and multivariate regression. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 129(2), 198–204.
Williams, T. P. (2005). Bidding ratios to predict highway project costs. Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, 12(1), 38–51.
Wilmot, C. G., & Cheng, G. (2003). Estimating future highway construction costs.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 129(3), 272–279.
Yu, W.-D. (2006). PIREM: A new model for conceptual cost estimation. Construction
Management and Economics, 24(3), 259.