Even though the IEA cost analysis is their version of a take-apart bid, it still must be subjected to some fudge factors.  I believe they would do well to use the rule of thumb of the historical preservationists and multiply their timeline by 2 and their costs by 3.  After all, corruption alone could easily double their cost estimates.  But these are minor quibbles.

The father of a friend of mine in L.A. in the '70s had a PhD in Chemistry and was a Senior Scientist for Xerox.  He had developed the selenium drum for the first Xerox machine and had made the first epoxy printed circuit board manufactured on the west coast in the oven at home.

Charlie had the "rule of two and a half."  Everything takes twice as long, cost twice as much and is only half as profitable as originally estimated.  Having made a fool of myself more than once on estimates, I have always appreciated the rule. My question has always been: after I have applied the rule of two and a half, does it still apply?

I hate having to estimate my own work, which I always must.  If you really want to do something, there is a temptation, and considerable pressure, to tailor the estimate to fit the budget.  From the contractor's point of view this becomes, in the words of the first contractor for whom I worked, "Do you want the job?"

Too often I have wanted the job.  Fortunately, I enjoy my work and currently have a job underway on which I am about at my estimated hours.  Unfortunately, it is only about three fourths done.  For that reason I will not be able to further follow up on you excellent diary for a few days.  At least on ET I can always find it on your homepage.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."