Cost fluctuations at different project phases
| Project no. | A. Initial cost (cost estimate before the development phase) | B. Contract cost10 (cost estimate of the AC development phase) | C. Actual cost (final cost of the AC implementation phase) | D. Cost overrun (from a to C) (%) | Cost index effect9 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 338.5 M€ | 455.5 M€ | 445.0 M€ | +31.5 | +21.3 |
| 2 | 219.0 M€ | 240.8 M€ | 239.6 M€ | +9.4 | +8.7 |
| 3 | 160.4 M€ | 160.4 M€ (2017 1) 231.5 M€ (2019 2) | 217.8 M€ | +35.8 | +6.4 |
| 4 | 168.0 M€ 4 | 172.4 M€ | <172.4 M€ 3 275.0 M€ 4 | +2.6 | +21.3 |
| 5 | 185.0 M€ | 180.3 M€ | 192.1 M€ 7 | +3.8 | +3.2 |
| 6 | 132.5 M€ 6 | 159.0 M€ | 166.0 M€ | +25.3 | +9.5 |
| 7 | 130.0 M€ | 141.0 M€ | 141.0 M€ 8 | +8.5 | +17.7 |
| 8 | 139.0 M€ | 170.0 M€ | 200.0 M€ | +43.9 | +10.6 |
| 9 | 75.0 M€ | 200.0 M€ 5 | N/A 5 | +166.7 | +3.3 |
| 10 | 137.6 M€ | 106.4 M€ | 104.8 M€ | −23.8 | +5.2 |
| Mean | +35.1 | +10.7 |
| Project no. | A. Initial cost (cost estimate before the development phase) | B. Contract cost10 (cost estimate of the | C. Actual cost (final cost of the | D. Cost overrun (from a to C) (%) | Cost index effect9 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 338.5 M€ | 455.5 M€ | 445.0 M€ | +31.5 | +21.3 |
| 2 | 219.0 M€ | 240.8 M€ | 239.6 M€ | +9.4 | +8.7 |
| 3 | 160.4 M€ | 160.4 M€ (2017 1) 231.5 M€ (2019 2) | 217.8 M€ | +35.8 | +6.4 |
| 4 | 168.0 M€ 4 | 172.4 M€ | <172.4 M€ 3 275.0 M€ 4 | +2.6 | +21.3 |
| 5 | 185.0 M€ | 180.3 M€ | 192.1 M€ 7 | +3.8 | +3.2 |
| 6 | 132.5 M€ 6 | 159.0 M€ | 166.0 M€ | +25.3 | +9.5 |
| 7 | 130.0 M€ | 141.0 M€ | 141.0 M€ 8 | +8.5 | +17.7 |
| 8 | 139.0 M€ | 170.0 M€ | 200.0 M€ | +43.9 | +10.6 |
| 9 | 75.0 M€ | 200.0 M€ 5 | N/A 5 | +166.7 | +3.3 |
| 10 | 137.6 M€ | 106.4 M€ | 104.8 M€ | −23.8 | +5.2 |
| Mean | +35.1 | +10.7 |
1./ 2. Figures differ in public sources, and the original materials are difficult to find. 3. The final cost of the alliance was included in the actual costs of the three-part project, and the report only stated that “the alliance was completed below the target price”. 4. Only the alliance, not the entire project. 5. The alliance contract was terminated by the client. However, the project continues under an EPCM contract model. 6. The project plan includes fixed hospital equipment that is not included in the alliance agreement. 7. There is some uncertainty in the latest report, as the warranty period was still ongoing at the time and no newer data are available. 8. The final cost is not public, but the chair of the hospital district board stated in a newspaper interview that the “project remained within budget and on schedule”. 9. Building cost index from Statistics Finland. 10. Contract cost refers to the agreed target cost, which is confirmed at the end of the alliance development phase and represents the official cost basis for the project implementation phase
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.