http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/080408/met_313132652.shtml (http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/080408/met_313132652.shtml)
I noticed that also.
It is the less expensive option, yet I question why it has to a) look so boring old-fashioned and b) can't they do a glass and steel marvel on one block of land instead?
Quote from: stephendare on August 04, 2008, 06:56:26 PM
btw, is labor really a 50 million dollar cost?
no...its probably much more...they just have ther potential to save $50 million in labor costs dince contractors need the work.
Think about home renovations....labor is usually at least 1/3 of the total cost.
Parking on the lower decks and people on the top, REACH FOR THE SKY JACKSONVILLE!
Build UP!
My two cents worth...
Ocklawaha
no Stephen...its called a multiplier...for every $1 in actual labor, there is probably around anolther $1.50-$2 in overhead and profit....
plus this will take 2+ years to build and I have a feeling there might be more than 250 workers on a building this big.
so, for the sake of argument, $50 million in savings for 250 workers over 2.5 years at a 2.75 multiplier = $30,000 per employee per year
Quote from: stephendare on August 05, 2008, 10:33:02 PM
and how did we go to 2.75 in multipliers from 1.50-2?
Simple...labor of 1.0 + overhead/profit of around 1.75 = total multiplier of 2.75
so, as an example of the 2.75....say I get paid around $40/hour....my company would charge $110/hour to a client.
Does anyone have any insight as to whether there are designs which address the very well founded concerns expressed on this site a few months ago? The last design I saw, while looking rather impressive, left a lot to be desired. Its flaws were well chronicled here. I, too, feel a more vertical structure such as the federal courthouse would be much better. If they are committed to using several blocks for a more horizontal design, is there any indication the final decision makers are aware of the previous design problems which were blatantly obvious to all on this site?
no...its $80,000 saved per employee ($50,000,000 / 250 / 2.5)....so at a 2.75 multiplier, the labor is actually $29,000.
but think about it this way...its simple suppply and demand....when contractors are busy, they can bid up the price....and when they need work, the undercut it.
Could the labor also include equipment rentals (i.e. cranes, lifts, bulldozers, etc.)?
The $50 million trimmed for "labor" could just be a political way of saying "We over bid".
Quote from: stephendare on August 06, 2008, 02:11:19 PM
50 million dollars of fat trimmed from labor?
Im sorry TUFSU, this simply doesnt make any sense to me.
Am I alone in this?
Yes ;)
Quote from: stephendare on August 06, 2008, 09:23:59 PM
TUFSU,
I ended up talking with a fairly large contractor today and he says that with your formula, the total labor for the entire project would have had to be almost 90 million dollars.
Does that make sense?
could be...as I said, it seems entirely plausible that labor would be 25-30% of the cost....and then there's the mobilization of equipment.
the example I used of a 2.75 multiplier is pretty common in the construction/engineering field....and quite often, large national companies have even higher multipliers...3.0 and higher is not at all uncommon
Quote from: stephendare on August 06, 2008, 10:20:26 PM
It sounds like a big boondoggle then.
why do you say that?
There are lots of costs other than just pure labor....like benefits, office space rent, copiers, phones, computers, etc...I can imagine on a job this big, the employee and company insurance requirements would be quite costly.
Plus, companies generally aim to make anywhere from a 10-20% profit....and as I said before, if demand is high, than workers demand higher salaries...and if they have to work extra, they get overtime (1.5) pay.
This is how business works...you should know that from all of your past endeavors.
Any new information?
Re: Courthouse article says final design will be known by November
« Reply #24 on: August 06, 2008, 10:20:26 PM » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It sounds like a big boondoggle then.
Actually, a multiplier of 2.75 is not at all surprising.
I realize this is apples to oranges, but when I was involved with the construction industry in NYC in the heady, building crazed '90's, I would not have blinked at a multiplier of 5.0 (and greater) for some the projects in NYC. There are lots of "considerations" that go into the final figure bid for "labor" other than the mere cost of filling a pair of boots on the site (straight salary). And some of those considerations, if exposed, would cause howls of outrage from the average commentator, but are nonetheless part of the construction business. A good deal of it is dependant on timing, location, skill level and availability of resources. I wouldn't even want to guess at the costs Skanska Construction had to absorb in finishing The Peninsula, even though they were called in (and paid) by the surety bond company. I see a razor thin margin for them on that project, at best.
Actually, from a labor cost perspective, this is a relatively good time to be bidding a large municipal project; most corresponding prices should be pretty low. However, to offset that, the prices of raw and finished materials have skyrocketed. Building the Courthouse will be a challenge no matter when it is done, so they should just get to it already.
Will public comment be sought on the design before it is finalized?