Case Study: Foundation Work Scope – BHS Animal & Plant Science Remodel

The BHS Animal & Plant Science Remodel is a single-story renovation project located in Bentonville, Arkansas, involving interior renovations and limited exterior modifications to an existing educational facility.

BHS- 1

The BHS Animal & Plant Science Remodel is a single-story renovation project located in Bentonville, Arkansas, involving interior renovations and limited exterior modifications to an existing educational facility.

For this project, the foundation work scope is limited to selective foundation-related modifications, including:

  • Slab demolition and replacement
  • Edge thickening at slab infill
  • Doweling into existing concrete
  • Subgrade preparation
  • Exterior sidewalk and slab edge support
  • Minor concrete foundation restoration around new openings

The relevant structural and architectural drawings for foundation work include:

  • S1.0 – Structural General Notes
  • S3.1 – Structural Framing Plan
  • A2.0 – Demolition Plan
  • A2.1 – Floor Plan
  • A2.2 – Architectural Details

This is not a new building foundation package, but rather a selective foundation restoration scope supporting plumbing modifications, slab infills, and minor exterior work.

This kind of renovation foundation work requires careful estimating because the quantities are small but the labor intensity, mobilization cost, and tie-in complexity are high.


2. TRADE ABSTRACT / SCOPE OVERVIEW

The foundation subcontractor scope includes:


A. Selective Demolition

  • Sawcut existing slab at trench locations
  • Remove slab sections for plumbing work
  • Remove slab at infill locations
  • Remove sidewalk at exterior modifications

Referenced in:

  • A2.0 demolition notes
  • S3.1 slab demo notes

B. Foundation Restoration

  • Recompact subgrade
  • Install vapor barrier
  • Install reinforcing mesh
  • Install dowels into existing slab
  • Place new slab concrete
  • Form slab edge repairs
  • Repair slab around penetrations

Referenced in:

  • A2.0 D9 slab infill detail
  • S1.0 concrete notes

C. Accessories

  • WWF reinforcement
  • Dowels with epoxy
  • Vapor barrier
  • Edge forms
  • Joint sealants

D. Labor & Equipment

  • Saw cutting
  • Concrete demolition
  • Rebar doweling
  • Forming
  • Placement and finishing

3. PLAN REVIEW PROCESS


Step 1 – Review Structural Notes (S1.0)

The estimator begins by reviewing S1.0, which establishes:

  • Concrete strength
  • Reinforcing requirements
  • Doweling requirements
  • Subgrade preparation standards

This defines the required restoration materials.


Step 2 – Review Structural Framing Plan (S3.1)

On S3.1, the plan note states:

“Slab demo and pourback as required to remove and cap sanitary sewer lines.”

This identifies slab restoration quantities.


Step 3 – Review Architectural Demolition Plan (A2.0)

On A2.0, demolition notes and slab infill detail define:

  • slab removal limits
  • doweling
  • patch-back detail
  • edge conditions

Step 4 – Review Exterior Details (A2.2)

Exterior sidewalk detail provides:

  • slab thickness
  • edge preparation
  • base requirements

These establish slab edge support requirements.


4. ESTIMATION PREPARATION STEPS

Before quantity takeoff, assumptions are defined:


Assumptions

  • Existing slab is 4″ thick
  • Thickened edges at slab repairs are 12″ wide x 12″ deep
  • Plumbing trench repair averages 2′ wide
  • Existing subgrade suitable for recompaction
  • One mobilization only

Waste Factors

  • Concrete: 10%
  • WWF: 8%
  • Dowels: 5%

These waste factors are higher due to small pours and cutting waste.


Labor Assumptions

Prevailing wage productivity assumptions:

  • Slab demo: 15 SF/hr
  • Subgrade prep: 50 SF/hr
  • Concrete placement: 0.40 CY/hr
  • Doweling: 8 EA/hr

Constructability Considerations

Small foundation repairs are costly because:

  • Multiple isolated repairs reduce efficiency
  • Doweling into existing slabs increases labor
  • Small concrete placements incur mobilization inefficiencies
  • Interior access constraints reduce production rates

These conditions substantially increase unit cost.


5. DETAILED MATERIAL TAKEOFF


A. Plumbing Trench Slab Restoration

Based on structural coordination:

Assume:

  • 3 trench repairs
  • 20 LF each
  • 2′ wide
  • 4″ slab thickness

Area:

3 × 20 × 2 = 120 SF

Volume:

120 × 4″/12 = 40 CF = 1.48 CY

Waste @10%:

1.48 × 1.10 = 1.63 CY


B. Thickened Slab Edge

Per trench perimeter:

  • 3 trenches × 40 LF perimeter = 120 LF

Thickened edge:

  • 12″ wide × 12″ deep

Volume:

120 × 1 × 1 = 120 CF = 4.44 CY

Waste @10%:

4.44 × 1.10 = 4.88 CY


C. Exterior Slab Repair

Assume:

  • 60 SF slab repair
  • 4″ thick

Volume:
60 × 4″/12 = 20 CF = 0.74 CY

Waste @10%:

0.74 × 1.10 = 0.81 CY


D. Total Concrete Volume

1.63 + 4.88 + 0.81 = 7.32 CY

Round to 8 CY


E. WWF Reinforcement

Total slab area:
120 + 60 = 180 SF

Waste @8%:

180 × 1.08 = 194 SF


F. Dowels

Assume:

  • 120 LF perimeter ÷ 1.5′ spacing = 80 EA

Waste @5%:

80 × 1.05 = 84 EA


6. LABOR & PRICING BUILD-UP (Prevailing Wage)

Using Arkansas prevailing foundation labor rates:


Material Pricing


Concrete:

8 CY × $250 = $2,000


WWF:

194 SF × $2.25 = $437


Dowels / epoxy:

84 EA × $4.50 = $378


Vapor barrier / accessories:

Allowance = $425


Material Total:

$3,240


Labor Pricing


Slab Demo:

180 ÷ 15 = 12 hrs
12 × $72 = $864


Subgrade Prep:

180 ÷ 50 = 4 hrs
4 × $72 = $288


Concrete Placement:

8 ÷ 0.40 = 20 hrs
20 × $72 = $1,440


Doweling:

84 ÷ 8 = 10.5 hrs
10.5 × $72 = $756


Labor Total:

$3,348


Equipment

Saw cutting, mixer, tools:
$850


Direct Cost

$3,240 + $3,348 + $850 = $7,438


O&P

Overhead 10%

$744

Profit 10%

$818


Tax (8% material)

$259


Final Foundation Estimate:

$9,259


7. FINAL ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Cost ItemAmount
Materials$3,240
Labor$3,348
Equipment$850
Tax$259
O&P$1,562
Final Estimate Total$9,259

8. ESTIMATOR NOTES / PROFESSIONAL INSIGHTS

The foundation scope is small in volume but highly labor-driven, which is common for selective renovation foundation work.

The primary cost drivers are:

  1. Concrete mobilization for small pours
  2. Doweling into existing slabs
  3. Interior access restrictions
  4. Subgrade repair requirements
  5. Multiple isolated patch locations

Although only 8 CY of concrete is required, the installed cost is elevated due to:

  • Small batch delivery charges
  • Reduced labor efficiency
  • Higher forming labor per cubic yard
  • Tie-in complexity with existing foundations

Recommended bid clarifications:

  • Unsuitable soils excluded
  • Existing slab thickness assumed as shown
  • Dewatering excluded
  • No underpinning included
  • One mobilization included

These clarifications reduce subcontractor risk exposure.



Last fact-checked and editorially reviewed on —

How we created & reviewed this content:

We continually review and update this content.

DISCLAIMER

Profound Estimates besides its services, also provides independent, fact-checked information about construction estimates and material takeoffs for general reference only and images on this site maybe AI-Assisted where appropriate and relevant. Read our full disclaimer for details. Read the disclaimer

INFORMATION SOURCES

Profound Estimates follows strict sourcing standards, relying only on credible, verifiable data from manufacturers, industry benchmarks, and reputable publications. Learn more about how we ensure content accuracy and transparency in our Editorial Policy. Editorial Policy

EDITORIAL HISTORY

Our team of writers, editors, and reviewers continually monitors the construction industry and updates articles when new information becomes available. See how we maintain transparency and editorial integrity in our Editorial Policy. Editorial Policy

  • Current version (April 24, 2026)
    DISCUSSION & FEEDBACK

    We value reader insights and industry feedback to help us keep our content accurate and relevant. Learn how we handle reviews, corrections, and updates in our Editorial Policy. Editorial Policy

    Leave a feedback on this post update at our social platforms.

    CITE & SHARE

    You’re welcome to cite and share profound estimates content for reference with proper attribution and a link back to the original article — helping more readers access trustworthy, well-researched construction information.

    Profound Estimates. May 10, 2026. “Case Study: Foundation Work Scope – BHS Animal & Plant Science Remodel.” https://profoundestimates.com/case-studies/case-study-foundation-work-scope-bhs-animal-plant-science-remodel.

    Share on: Facebook | X (Twitter) | Reddit | Pinterest | Telegram | WhatsApp | LinkedIn | TikTok | Threads

    More UPDATES