Kev wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:


I doubt it. The £5.7m may well include a large contingency figure (+40%
is common).

Contingency for what exactly and why 40%. Notice how estimates for
anything these days are bumped up out of all proportion by addding all
kinds of non essential guff into it.
So now we have "regeneration costs" escalating the Olympics.
What are regeneration costs and I strongly suspect that the lottery
fund will pay for what should probably be Government expenditure.
If I submitted an estimate for anything and it contained contingency my
arse would be kicked out of the door.

If they knew what they were making contingencies for, they wouldn't have
to make contingencies...

Estimates for public works are rarely accurate - there are so many risks
involved. 40% is considered an appropriate amount to mitigate against
these risks. It would be more irresponsible *not* to budget for risks in
these works - if something unforeseen then came up, everyone would
complain that the public body should have considered such difficulties
before budgeting!

I'm not sure what you submit estimates for, but I suspect the risks are
largely in your control. That cannot be said for public works.

Besides, if you ever use insurance, that's a contingency fund.

--
Dave Arquati
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London