The largest impact the Triad potentially has on project financial planning is associated with cost estimation and project budgeting. The dynamic nature of Triad work strategies means that the ultimate extent of field activities may be less defined at the outset of project work than would be the case otherwise. This is because a Triad project expects field activities to develop according to the actual conditions found in the field, whether or not project planners had accurate expectations during project planning. This provides some unique benefits from a technical perspective, including allowing activities to change in response to unexpected field conditions, and permitting work to continue until the objectives of field activities are met. However, this unique benefit also poses additional cost estimation and budgeting challenges.

The reality for all hazardous waste characterization and remediation projects is that their ultimate life-cycle cost is highly uncertain at the project outset. For traditional programs, this uncertainty is addressed by dividing activities into discrete sequential pieces, each of which is planned with relatively fixed budgets and scope. The end result is that life cycle cost uncertainties are reflected in the number of required activities along with associated budget, schedule, and scope creep, but not in the cost of each activity as it comes on-line. In contrast, with a Triad approach there will likely be relatively less uncertainty about the number of field activities required, but relatively more uncertainty about the costs and scope associated with individual activities when they begin. Cost estimation under the Triad requires contingency analysis to determine what the most likely costs scenarios are, the deviations that are plausible in response to unexpected field conditions, and what the cost implications would be of those deviations.