10.2 Resource Management, Scheduling, and Cost Estimating

Turning Scope Into Time and Cost

Once the scope and work breakdown are known, the firm must decide what resources are needed and how long the work will take. The FS exam may show a project manager or party chief choosing between schedules, staffing options, or estimating responses. The correct answer usually recognizes dependencies and assumptions instead of pretending a survey task exists in isolation.

Resources include far more than field-crew hours: professional review, CAD or Geographic Information System (GIS) work, record research, total stations and Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receivers, vehicles, software, traffic control, safety equipment, subconsultants, permits, and travel. A schedule built only around the field day ignores the time to obtain records, process data, resolve discrepancies, prepare deliverables, and complete QC.

Estimating Categories

Scheduling With the Critical Path Method

Surveying schedules are built from activities with dependencies. The Critical Path Method (CPM) models a project as a network of activities; the critical path is the longest chain of dependent activities from start to finish, and it sets the minimum project duration. An activity's float (slack) is the time it can be delayed without delaying the project; activities with zero float lie on the critical path and cannot slip without pushing the finish date. A Gantt chart displays the same activities on a timeline and is easier to read at a glance, but CPM reveals which dependencies actually drive the schedule.

For surveying work, record research must precede boundary field work, control verification must precede staking, and aerial mapping depends on weather, ground control, and processing. Agency review can control final delivery even after the technical survey is complete. FS distractors typically ignore one of these dependencies. Identifying the critical path tells a manager where overtime or a second crew actually shortens the project, versus where extra effort only consumes float.

Engineering Economics and Progress Control

The FS exam tests basic engineering economics, the time value of money. A dollar today is not equal to a dollar next year, so cash flows must be moved to a common point before they are compared. The reference handbook supplies compound-interest factors: the single-payment present-worth factor (P/F, i, n) = 1/(1+i)^n converts a future sum F to present worth P; the uniform-series present-worth factor (P/A, i, n) converts an annual amount A (such as yearly maintenance) to present worth; and (F/A, i, n) grows an annual series to a future sum.

Comparisons are made on a consistent basis: present worth, future worth, or equivalent uniform annual worth. Never compare raw cash flows that live in different years.

Worked example: a salvage value of $5,000 received in 5 years at i = 6% has present worth P = 5{,}000 x (P/F, 6%, 5) = 5{,}000 x 1/(1.06)^5 = 5{,}000 x 0.7473 = $3,736. That present worth, not the raw $5,000, is what enters an equipment-replacement comparison.

Finally, progress control compares planned effort to actual effort early. If a crew spends two days finding control budgeted for half a day, the manager should investigate at once, the cause may be poor records, access, missing monuments, or an estimating error. Pricing approaches (lump sum, time-and-materials, unit price, cost-plus) allocate that risk differently; lump sum is efficient when scope is well defined but risky when conditions are uncertain.

Fee Structures and Equivalence Comparisons

The fee structure is a risk-allocation decision the FS exam can pose as a judgment question. Lump-sum pricing works best when scope and deliverables are well defined; the firm absorbs overrun risk, so it is dangerous on uncertain work. Time-and-materials (T&M), often capped at a not-to-exceed limit, fits investigative work and shifts more risk to the client. Unit pricing suits repetitive, countable tasks. Cost-plus reimburses cost plus a fee when scope cannot be predicted. Matching the structure to scope certainty is the recurring lesson.

Engineering economics also supports equivalence comparisons between alternatives, such as buying versus leasing a GNSS receiver. The rule is to express every option as a present worth, future worth, or equivalent uniform annual worth at the same interest rate, then compare. A $40,000 receiver with a $4,000 salvage in 5 years is not compared by subtracting raw dollars; the salvage is discounted with (P/F, i, 5) and annual maintenance with (P/A, i, 5) so all cash flows share one time frame. Mixing dollars from different years is the most common engineering-economics error the FS exam tests.

Production Rates and Early Progress Control

Reliable estimates rest on realistic production rates, how many boundary corners a crew recovers per day, how many topographic shots per hour a method yields, or how long a level loop takes. Rates depend on terrain, vegetation, traffic, record quality, and equipment, so a GNSS-RTK survey in open terrain and a total-station survey under canopy estimate very differently; the estimate should reflect the method actually planned.

Crew sizing is part of the same calculation: a one-person robotic crew, a two-person conventional crew, and a GNSS base-plus-rover setup have different daily costs and production, and the lowest hourly rate is not always the lowest cost per deliverable.

Progress control ties the estimate back to reality early. Tracking earned hours against budgeted hours at the task level, not just the project total, reveals trouble while it is still correctable. If control recovery budgeted for half a day consumes two days, the manager investigates the cause, missing monuments, bad records, or restricted access, and decides whether a change order, an added crew, or a client conversation is warranted. Waiting until final billing turns a manageable variance into a client dispute and a profit loss.