Moving a 34,900-square-foot comparable across cities and years, by weighted-average index and by division, MT382's Unit 3 adjustment lands near 272 dollars a square foot and checks the conceptual figure. Searches like "mt 382 unit 3 assignment example", "mt382 unit 3 sample" and "mt382 unit 3 example" land here.
What a finished MT382 Unit 3 location and time adjustment looks like
A source table leads the six pages: the comparable's area, bid year and building cost excluding site, with the index values supplied with the case, 108.9 for the comparable's city and 91.6 for the project's, where the national average equals 100, plus a historical index rebased to 100 in the bid year and standing at 107.1 now. The first method multiplies the cost by 91.6 over 108.9, then by 1.071, giving 9,559,921 dollars. The second splits the cost across nine division groups using the comparable's bid tabulation and applies each division's own index ratio, masonry lowest at 0.697, for 9,489,865. A closing table sets the result, 271.92 per square foot, against the conceptual estimate's building rate and notes where it falls within that estimate's quartile spread.
How a MT382 Unit 3 example is structured
Location and time are handled as separate operations, each a ratio, because they answer different questions. City cost indexes compare one place with a national average at a single moment, with material, installation and total columns in each division, so dividing the project city's index by the comparable city's moves cost across the map and nowhere else. The historical index moves cost across the calendar, and only up to the present; carrying prices to the midpoint of future construction is escalation, which a later memo sizes. The division method earns its extra page by showing where the weighted average misleads: the comparable was masonry-heavy, and the project city's masonry index sits far below its average, so the division result comes in 0.73 percent lower. The final section warns against applying a city index to a database figure already localized, which here would understate cost by nearly 800,000 dollars.
Place first, then date
Multiplying by 91.6 over 108.9 moves the comparable from one city to another. Multiplying again by 107.1 over 100 brings the bid-year price to the present, and neither step touches the other.
Nine division groups, nine ratios
Concrete moves by 0.802, metals by 0.934, electrical by 0.843. Masonry, twelve percent of the comparable, moves by 0.697, the steepest drop and the reason the two methods disagree.
Seventy thousand dollars apart
The division method lands 70,056 dollars below the weighted average, a gap of 0.73 percent. Small here, it would widen on a building whose trade mix strays further from typical.
History is not a forecast
The historical index stops at today. Pricing work that will be bought during construction requires an escalation rate someone can source, and that belongs to a separate memo.
The double-adjustment trap
Applying the project city's index to a figure already priced there would cut it to 8,692,716 dollars. The paper shows that error beside the correct result so its size is plain.
A check on the conceptual rate
At 271.92 dollars a square foot, the adjusted comparable sits 8.2 percent under the database-based building rate, well inside the quartile spread that estimate already stated.
Where marks go in MT382 Unit 3
Credit here depends on describing the indexes correctly before using them. Papers that treat a city index as an inflation rate, or use a historical index to move cost between cities, misread what each measures, and markers notice. Ratios must run the right way, destination index over origin index. A frequent slip multiplies by the destination index alone, as though the origin were the national average. Double adjustment, localizing a figure already priced locally, is the other classic error. The division method is often credited even where it changes little, because it shows the estimator checked whether the building's trade mix matched the average. Stating where index values came from matters, and unnamed values read as invented. Treating the historical index as a forecast of future prices confuses time adjustment with escalation.
Get a MT382 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Which base cost, which two cities, which two dates? Those facts from your Unit 3 prompt, plus whichever index tables or cost references the course relies on and the rubric, are all a first adjustment needs. Nothing is charged for it, and it comes back in 24-48h with each ratio running destination over origin and location kept apart from time.
MT382 Unit 3 questions, answered
How do city cost indexes work?
They express a location's construction costs relative to a national average set at 100, usually with separate material, installation and total columns for each division. To move a cost from one city to another, multiply by the destination index divided by the origin index. They compare places at one moment and do not adjust for time.
Should I use the weighted average or division indexes?
The weighted average is quicker and often close enough for an early figure. Division indexes are better when the building's trade mix differs from typical, as with a masonry-heavy structure or an unusually large mechanical system. If your prompt allows, calculate both and explain any difference, as the sample does.
Is a time adjustment the same as escalation?
No. A time adjustment uses historical indexes to move a past cost to the present. Escalation projects today's prices ahead to the period when the work is actually purchased, commonly taken as construction's midpoint, using a forecast rate. Keep them as separate steps so a reader knows which part rests on records and which on a forecast.