A feasibility study is not a takeoff of drawings that do not exist yet. It is a cost model built from program area, site constraints, and jurisdiction, priced at the accuracy you can actually support before schematic design. You send a program sheet, a site address, a target budget, and whatever you have — a survey, a geotech memo, a zoning envelope, a comparable project's plans. We return a Uniformat II elemental model with a low–high range, stated assumptions, and the drivers that move the number.
- Deliverable
- Excel estimate + marked-up PDF plans
- Organized by
- CSI MasterFormat section
- Turnaround
- 24–48 hours for most projects
- Pricing
- ZIP-code-adjusted material and labor pricing
- Software
- Bluebeam Revu, PlanSwift, RSMeans data
Developers use this before committing to land, design fees, or a capital raise. Owners use it to test whether a program fits a known budget. Architects use it to pressure-test massing and structural system options before the first SD set. If you already have drawings, our Construction Estimating Services and Preliminary & Conceptual Estimating pages cover the next level of detail.
Every model is organized by Uniformat II elements — A Substructure through G Building Sitework, plus Z General Conditions — with a parallel CSI MasterFormat rollup so your contractor and lender can read the same file. Material and labor pricing is adjusted to the project ZIP code using RSMeans data, not a national average. Deliverables come in Excel and PDF with marked-up plan sets where drawings exist. Turnaround is 24–48 hours for most projects, with rush available.
We build the model in Bluebeam Revu and PlanSwift, and we can work from Revit or IFC drawings when a massing model exists. The output is an order of magnitude estimate with a cost breakdown structure that maps to your pro forma, so you can see how the number affects return on investment and internal rate of return before you commit to a GMP or lump sum contract. This is early stage cost estimating, not a bid.
What a construction feasibility study cost estimate includes
We price the elements that drive 80% of the hard cost at this stage, and we carry the rest as an allowance with a named basis. The goal is a defensible range you can take to an investment committee, not a bid.
Substructure & Foundation
Spread footings, mat, or deep foundations priced by geotech; includes excavation, backfill, and dewatering.
CY · SF · LFStructural System
CIP concrete, structural steel, or mass timber compared by floor plate and story count, with tonnage and formwork.
SF · tons · CYExterior Envelope
Curtain wall, storefront, masonry veneer, and metal panel measured by assembly, including insulation and sealants.
SF · LFRoofing
TPO, modified bitumen, or standing seam priced by area, with insulation, flashing, and edge metal.
SF · LFMEP Systems
Central plant capacity, distribution, and fixtures priced by system type; chillers, boilers, air handlers, and electrical service.
tons · MBH · kVA · EASitework
Mass grading, retaining walls, storm drainage, utility extensions, and offsite improvements.
CY · SF · LFParking
Surface or structured parking count and type, including ramps, striping, and ventilation if enclosed.
stalls · SFGeneral Conditions
Duration-based supervision, temporary facilities, permits, and insurance as a percentage of hard cost.
months · percentWhat every cost planning & feasibility studies takeoff includes
- Building gross area by floor plate and story count (GSF, RSF)
- Structural system comparison — CIP concrete, structural steel, mass timber (SF, tons)
- Foundation assumption by geotech — spread footings, mat, deep foundations (CY, LF)
- Exterior envelope by assembly — curtain wall, storefront, masonry veneer, metal panel (SF)
- Roof area by system — TPO, modified bitumen, standing seam (SF)
- MEP central plant capacity — chillers, boilers, air handlers (tons, MBH, each)
- Electrical service and distribution — switchgear, transformer, generator (amps, kVA, each)
- Site mass grading, retaining walls, storm drainage (CY, SF, LF)
- Utility extensions and offsite improvements (LF)
- Parking count and structure type (stalls, SF)
- General conditions and general requirements duration (months)
- Escalation and contingency as a percentage of hard cost (percent)
How we build the feasibility estimator model
- Intake and program reviewYou send the program sheet, site address, target budget, and any available documents — survey, geotech memo, zoning envelope, comparable plans. We confirm the GSF, unit count, story count, and parking ratio in writing before pricing. If the program is incomplete, we state the assumption we used and flag it for your confirmation.
- Site and jurisdiction screenWe check the ZIP code for labor rates, sales tax treatment, and utility capacity fee schedules. We note the adopted code family — IBC, IRC, IECC, NEC, IPC/UPC, NFPA 13 — and tell you to confirm the edition with the local building department. Offsite improvements required as a condition of approval are listed as a separate line.
- Structural and envelope optionsWe price two or three structural systems at the same bay size — cast-in-place concrete, structural steel, mass timber — and two envelope assemblies — curtain wall versus storefront versus masonry veneer. Each option gets a cost per SF, a schedule note, and an availability note for the project ZIP code. This is the comparison that moves the feasibility decision.
- Elemental assembly pricingEach Uniformat II element — A Substructure through G Building Sitework — is priced from a quantity times a ZIP-adjusted unit cost. Quantities come from the program area, the site plan, or a stated ratio. We carry an allowance with a named basis for anything that cannot be measured yet, and we mark it as an allowance in the file.
- Soft cost and contingency build-upWe add general conditions by month, design fees as a percentage of hard cost, permit and impact fees by jurisdiction, and two separate contingency lines — owner's and contractor's. Escalation is carried to the midpoint of construction, not the bid date. Sales tax on materials is applied at the project state rate.
- Range, assumptions, and deliveryThe final file shows a low–high range, a list of assumptions, and the drivers that move the number. It is delivered in Excel and PDF, organized by Uniformat II with a CSI MasterFormat rollup, with marked-up plan sets where drawings exist. Turnaround is 24–48 hours for most projects, with rush available.
What we need from you
- Program sheetGSF, unit count or key count, story count, and parking ratio. Without this we cannot set the building area.
- Site addressZIP code drives labor rates, sales tax, and utility capacity fees. A parcel number helps us check jurisdiction.
- Target budgetThe number you are testing against. We compare the model to it and state the gap in dollars and percent.
- Survey or site planClearing area, paving area, utility runs, and retaining wall locations. Without it, sitework is an allowance.
- Geotech memoFoundation type and dewatering risk. If not issued, we assume a foundation type and flag it as a risk.
- Zoning envelopeHeight, setback, and floor plate limits. This sets the massing the cost model is built on.
- Comparable plansA similar project's drawings let us price assemblies instead of allowances, which tightens the range.
- Schedule milestonesStart and completion dates set the escalation period and the general conditions duration.
Sample feasibility study cost estimate format
This is the level of detail you get at the feasibility stage. Quantities are derived from program area and site assumptions, not a member-by-member takeoff.
| Section | Line item | Qty | Unit | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03 30 00 | Mat foundation, 36 in thick, 4,000 psi | 1,850 | CY | S-101 |
| 05 12 00 | Structural steel, bay size 30 × 30 ft | 410 | TON | S-201 |
| 08 44 13 | Unitized curtain wall, 1,200 panels | 22,400 | SF | A-501 |
| 23 64 00 | Chiller, centrifugal, 400-ton | 2 | EA | M-601 |
| 31 23 16 | Mass excavation, 8 ft depth | 14,200 | CY | C-101 |
| 26 24 13 | Switchgear, 4,000-amp, 480V | 1 | EA | E-401 |
| 01 50 00 | Temporary facilities, 14-month duration | 14 | MON | — |
| 07 54 00 | TPO roof, 60-mil membrane | 12,000 | SF | A-601 |
| 33 11 00 | Site utilities, 8-in water main | 320 | LF | C-201 |
| 03 30 00 | Mat foundation, 36 in thick, 4,000 psi | 1,850 | CY | S-101 |
Units and how we measure them
Feasibility units must match the decision they support. We measure each element in the unit a developer or lender will recognize.
| Item | Unit | How it's measured |
|---|---|---|
| Building area | GSF, RSF | Gross area from the zoning envelope or program sheet, rentable area from the efficiency factor you provide |
| Apartment, hotel key, patient bed | EA | Counted from the unit mix or key count; cost per unit includes the share of common area |
| Parking stall | EA | Counted from the site plan or code ratio; structured stalls priced separately from surface |
| Mass excavation | CY | Footprint area times depth to subgrade, divided by 27; no shrink or swell applied at this stage |
| Site clearing and paving | AC, SF | Cleared acreage from the survey; paving area from the site plan or a stated coverage ratio |
| Utility and curb | LF | Run length from the site plan or a measured distance to the nearest main |
| Structural steel | TON | Framing weight from a bay-size assumption, not a member-by-member takeoff |
| Central plant capacity | TON, MBH, EA | Chiller tons and boiler MBH from a load estimate; air handlers counted by unit |
| Electrical service | AMP, KVA, EA | Service size from a connected-load estimate; switchgear and transformers counted by section |
| General conditions | MON | Duration in months from a milestone schedule, not a calendar guess |
Worked example: mass excavation and export for a 4-story building
This example shows how we build a feasibility quantity for one element: mass excavation and export. The dimensions are illustrative and do not represent a specific project.
Step 1 — Building footprint from program.
- Program: 48,000 GSF over 4 stories → 12,000 SF per floor.
- Assume a rectangular footprint 100 ft × 120 ft = 12,000 SF.
Step 2 — Excavation depth.
- Assume 8 ft below existing grade to subgrade for a mat foundation.
- No rock, no dewatering assumed at this stage.
Step 3 — Bank volume.
- Volume = 12,000 SF × 8 ft = 96,000 cubic feet (CF).
- Convert to cubic yards: 96,000 CF ÷ 27 = 3,556 CY (bank volume).
Step 4 — Swell factor.
- Excavated soil bulks when loosened. Typical swell for common earth is 20–30%. Use 25%.
- Loose volume = 3,556 CY × 1.25 = 4,445 CY (loose).
- This is the volume to haul. The bank volume is what you pay to excavate; the loose volume is what you pay to truck.
Step 5 — Haul and disposal.
- Assume 10-mile round trip to a disposal site.
- Truck capacity: 12 CY per load (loose).
- Loads = 4,445 CY ÷ 12 = 371 loads.
- Cycle time: load 15 min, travel 30 min, dump 10 min, return 30 min = 85 min per cycle.
- With a 50-min hour efficiency, cycles per hour = 50 ÷ 85 = 0.59.
- Hours = 371 loads ÷ 0.59 = 629 truck hours.
- At $120/hr (ZIP-adjusted), haul cost = 629 × $120 = $75,480.
Step 6 — Excavation production.
- Assume a 3-cy excavator with a production rate of 150 CY per hour (bank) in common earth.
- Hours = 3,556 CY ÷ 150 = 24 hours.
- At $250/hr (ZIP-adjusted), excavation cost = 24 × $250 = $6,000.
Step 7 — Total element cost.
- Excavation: $6,000
- Haul and disposal: $75,480
- Total: $81,480 for 3,556 CY bank → $22.91 per CY bank.
Step 8 — Feasibility range.
- Apply a low–high range of –15% to +25% to cover soil variability, haul distance, and disposal fees.
- Low: $81,480 × 0.85 = $69,258
- High: $81,480 × 1.25 = $101,850
This is the level of calculation behind one line in the feasibility model. We repeat this for each element that can be measured, and carry an allowance for the rest.
What moves the early stage cost estimating number
Relative impact on a typical estimate for this trade, based on estimator judgment. Select a bar for details.
Structural system
Cast-in-place concrete, structural steel, and mass timber price differently per SF and carry different schedule durations. Bay size and span drive the tonnage or yardage. We price two or three options at the same bay size so you can see the spread before committing to a system.
Cast-in-place concrete, structural steel, and mass timber price differently per SF and carry different schedule durations. Bay size and span drive the tonnage or yardage. We price two or three options at the same bay size so you can see the spread before committing to a system.
Unitized curtain wall, storefront, masonry veneer, and metal panel have different unit costs per SF and different installation durations. The ratio of glass to opaque wall moves the number more than the glass type. We price the assembly you name and note the alternative.
Mass grading, retaining walls, dewatering, and utility extensions are often the largest unknown at feasibility. A site with 8 ft of cut and no rock prices differently from one with rock and a high water table. Without a geotech memo, these are allowances.
Utility capacity fees, impact fees, permit fees, and offsite improvement requirements vary by city and county. Sales tax on materials varies by state. We apply the project ZIP code and tell you to confirm the adopted code edition with the local building department.
Escalation is carried to the midpoint of construction, not the bid date. A 24-month schedule carries more escalation than a 14-month schedule. General conditions scale with duration, so a realistic milestone schedule tightens the model.
Owner's contingency and contractor's contingency are separate lines. At feasibility, owner's contingency typically covers program changes and unknown site conditions; contractor's contingency covers scope gaps. Carrying one blended number hides which risk you are funding.
Parking stalls drive both site area and structure cost. A surface stall and a structured stall price differently per stall, and the ratio you choose changes the building footprint, the site coverage, and the storm drainage quantity. We price the ratio you provide and note the code minimum.
Central plant versus distributed systems, VAV versus fan coil, and chiller type (centrifugal, screw, air-cooled) change both first cost and the electrical service size. We price the system you name and carry the electrical service at the connected load it implies.
Common gaps we catch in a project feasibility cost analysis
Feasibility models fail when an assumption is buried instead of stated. These are the gaps we look for in every intake.
- Escalation applied to the bid date instead of the midpoint of construction. The error grows with schedule length. We carry it to the midpoint and show the period in the file.
- Owner's contingency and contractor's contingency blended into one line. This hides which risk is funded. We split them and label the basis for each.
- General conditions duration guessed from a calendar instead of a milestone schedule. We tie it to the schedule you provide and flag the months.
- Utility capacity fees, impact fees, and permit fees omitted because they are not in the drawings. We pull them from the jurisdiction's published fee schedule and list them separately.
- Hazmat abatement and demolition scope missing on redevelopment sites. It hides in the Phase I environmental report, not the drawings. We carry an allowance and flag the need for a survey.
- Soils conditions and dewatering assumed away when the geotech report is not yet issued. We state the foundation assumption and mark it as a risk line.
- Temporary facilities, staging, and crane access omitted on tight urban lots. We add them from the site plan dimensions and note the constraint.
- Commissioning, special inspections, and third-party testing left out of Division 01. We carry them as a percentage of hard cost and label the basis.
- Offsite improvements required as a condition of approval not shown on the site plan. We list them from the jurisdiction's approval conditions.
- FF&E, OS&E, and owner-direct contracts assumed inside the GC scope. We exclude them and carry an allowance so the owner sees the full project cost.
- Design and soft cost fees treated as a single percentage without a breakdown. We separate architecture, engineering, and specialty consultants.
- Sales tax on materials applied at a national rate instead of the project state. We apply the state rate and flag exemptions the owner may claim.
Structural and envelope options we compare
At feasibility, the structural system and envelope assembly are the largest cost levers. We price two or three options at the same bay size so you can see the spread.
| Option | Typical unit cost basis | Schedule note | Availability note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cast-in-place concrete frame | $ per SF of floor area | Longer cure time; post-tension can accelerate | Requires local ready-mix and rebar supply; check plant distance |
| Structural steel frame | $ per ton of framing | Faster erection; depends on mill order lead time | Check local fabricator capacity and mill lead times |
| Mass timber frame | $ per SF of floor area | Modular erection; longer design and permitting | Limited suppliers; check regional availability and code allowances |
| Load-bearing masonry | $ per SF of wall area | Labor-intensive; weather-sensitive | Check local mason availability and material supply |
| Unitized curtain wall | $ per SF of wall area | Prefabricated; requires early design freeze | Limited manufacturers; check shipping distance and installation crew |
| Storefront glazing | $ per SF of wall area | Faster installation; less weather-tight | Widely available; check thermal performance for code |
| Masonry veneer | $ per SF of wall area | Labor-intensive; requires backup wall | Check local mason availability and material supply |
| Metal panel | $ per SF of wall area | Moderate installation; requires substrate | Widely available; check finish warranty and lead time |
Codes and standards that affect feasibility quantities
Model codes
At feasibility, the adopted code family sets the minimum program and the quantities we price. IBC and IRC govern occupancy, height, and area limits, which drive the massing and the structural system. IECC sets envelope performance, which changes the insulation and glazing assembly. NEC governs electrical service and distribution, affecting switchgear and transformer sizing. IPC/UPC set plumbing fixture counts, which affect the water and waste line sizes. NFPA 13 determines whether sprinklers are required and at what density, which affects the water supply and pump. Confirm the adopted edition with the local building department.
Industry standards
ACI 318 governs concrete strength and reinforcement, which affects the mat thickness and rebar quantity. ASTM standards cover steel (A992), concrete (C94), and soils testing (D1586), which inform the foundation assumption. SMACNA standards set duct construction and installation, which affect the MEP allowance. GA-600 provides fire-resistance design for gypsum assemblies, which affects partition types. NRCA guidelines cover roof system installation, which affects the roof assembly cost. These standards are referenced in specifications and affect the unit costs we apply.
Specification sections
The estimator must read Division 03 (Concrete) for mix designs and reinforcement, Division 05 (Metals) for steel grades and connections, Division 08 (Openings) for glazing and hardware, Division 23 (HVAC) for equipment capacities, Division 26 (Electrical) for service and distribution, and Division 31 (Earthwork) for excavation and backfill. In each, the specified product and installation requirements change the cost. For example, a 4,000 psi mix versus 5,000 psi changes the cement content and cost per CY.
Local amendments
Local jurisdictions adopt model codes with amendments that change cost. For example, some cities require stricter energy performance than IECC, or add seismic requirements beyond IBC. Utility capacity fees and impact fees are set locally and can be significant. Sales tax on materials varies by state and sometimes by county. The adopted code edition and amendments vary by jurisdiction, so always confirm with the local building department. We apply the project ZIP code and flag any local amendments that affect the model.
Who uses outsourced feasibility estimating
Developer
Tests whether a site, program, and jurisdiction can hit a target budget before committing to land or a capital raise. Uses the low–high range and the driver list in the investment committee memo.
Owner
Checks whether a known budget can carry the program. Uses the elemental rollup to decide what to cut or phase before design fees are spent.
Architect
Pressure-tests massing, structural system, and envelope options before the first SD set. Uses the option comparison to guide the design direction with cost data attached.
General contractor
Gets a pre-design cost basis to compare against a future bid. Uses the Uniformat II model to align with the owner's budget format and flag scope gaps early.
Lender or equity partner
Reviews the range, assumptions, and contingency structure as part of underwriting. Uses the stated basis to judge whether the budget is defensible.