Quote:
Originally Posted by craigwd
Absolutely untrue.
The Bidco budget was built by asking the venue managers what needs to be done and having them create the estimates. Similarly the security budget was built by asking CPS and RCMP to create their own estimated costs based on previous events.
As for the contingency fund, that is for unforseen spending on top of those budgets. It does not get used if not needed.
|
Definition of contingency
AACE International has defined contingency as "An amount added to an estimate to allow for items, conditions, or events for which the state, occurrence, or effect is uncertain and that
experience shows will likely result, in aggregate, in additional costs. Typically estimated using statistical analysis or judgment based on past asset or project experience. Contingency usually excludes:
Major scope changes such as changes in end product specification, capacities, building sizes, and location of the asset or project
Extraordinary events such as major strikes and natural disasters
Management reserves
Escalation and currency effects
Contingency by definition. Is expected to be spent.
I'm sure that they did
some legwork to define scope but my point is, until you have construction drawings complete you aren't even in the neighbourhood of +/- 20% and in my opinion the estimate presented should be taken as an order of magnitude, best case scenario.
Glad they asked CPS and the RCMP what security would cost, do you think their actual answer was less than the cost to provide security to the G7 in Quebec or the 2010 games in Van?, or do you thinks someone on the Bidco was more likely to take whatever number they gave and knock 25% off because "this time will be different".