Short form Investment Analysis Report (for asset projects at project approval and initial expenditure authority)

For Asset projects < $1M (refer to National Project Management System thresholds matrix) at Project Approval and initial Expenditure Authority for planning and design

This template serves as a helpful tool for preparing the Short Form Investment Analysis Report (IAR). Refer to the Long form Investment Analysis Report for asset projects at Project Approval for more details.

  • Project name:
  • Date:
  • Building name:
  • Version number:
  • Location:
  • Project Number:
  • Building ID:

1.0 Project information

1.1. Problem/opportunity definition

1.2. Background & project history

1.3. Building condition

This table is only an example and contains no data.
  Yes No Comments
Building Performance Report      
Building Condition Report      
Base Building Refresh Required      
Accessibility Report     Deficiencies identified:
Impact on Heritage Character      
Others      

1.4 Stakeholders

[This section should have the names and contact information of all the key stakeholders and brief description of their stake.]

2.0 Identification & analysis of options

2.1 Options considered

  • Option 1: Status Quo
  • Option 2:
  • Option 3:
  • Option 4:

2.2 Non-feasible options and rational

2.3 Options to be analyzed

  • Option 1: Status Quo
    • Description:
    • Estimated Cost:
    • Advantages:
    • Disadvantages:
  • Option 2:
    • Description:
    • Estimated Cost:
    • Advantages:
    • Disadvantages:
  • Option 3:
    • Description:
    • Estimated Cost:
    • Advantages:
    • Disadvantages:

[Additional options can be added as required]

2.4 Risk assessment

Example of relative risk evaluation for each option, using the evaluation matrix for risks.

Legend: Risk assessment Matrix (3x3)

Risk assessment Matrix (3x3). Image description below.
Image Description

This image indicates the score to attribute to a risk whether the impact and likelihood of the risk is low, moderate or high.

  • Impact Low: Normal
  • Impact Moderate: We could still function
  • Impact High: We couldn't function or our mandate would have to change
  • Likelihood Low: Normal or unlikely
  • Likelihood Moderate: Likely
  • Likelihood High: Very likely
  • Low impact and low likelihood: Accept risks - the score is 1
  • Low impact and moderate likelihood: Accept, but monitor risks - the score is 2
  • Low impact and high likelihood: Manage, mitigate and monitor risks - the score is 3
  • Moderate impact and low likelihood: Risk may be worth accepting with monitoring - the score is 2
  • Moderate impact and moderate likelihood: Management effort worthwhile, mitigate and monitor risks - the score is 4
  • Moderate impact and high likelihood: Must manage and monitor risk (inform senior management) - the score is 6
  • High impact and low likelihood: Considerable management and monitoring required - the score is 3
  • High impact and moderate likelihood: Manage and monitor risks (inform senior management) - the score is 6
  • High impact and high likelihood: Management (extensive senior management involvement) - the score is 9

Legend: Risk Factors

  • L: Likelihood
  • I: Impact
  • L: Low
  • M: Moderate
  • H: High
Table Summary

The table measures the feasibility of options by assigning a score to each option with regards to risk factors, depending whether the impact and likelihood of the risk is low, moderate or high. At total score is calculated for each option, using the sum of its scores relating to each risk factor given.

Risk Factors Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
L Likelihood I Score L Likelihood I Score L Likelihood I Score
Changing client requirements M M 4 M M 4 M M 4
Stakeholder requirements L L 1 L L 1 L L 1
Unknown site/Building conditions L HHigh 3 M M 4 M HHigh 6
Accuracy of estimates L HHigh 3 L HHigh 3 M M 4
Accuracy of scheduling M M 4 M M 4 M M 4
Project funding L L 1 L M 2 M M 4
Total score     16     18     23

2.5 Conclusions

[Combination of results of all analysis and recommended option.]

3.0 Project scope

[Identify all requirements of the recommended option.]

4.0 Strategic impact

This table is only an example and contains no data.
Policy/Strategy Compliance Justification
Yes No
Asset Management Plan      
National Investment Strategy      
Sustainable Development Strategy      
National Project Management System      
Building Management Plan or Signed Simplified Statement of Requirements      
Signed Simplified Preliminary Project Plan      
Regional Investment Strategy      
Community-Based Investment Strategy      
Federal Heritage      
Good Neighbour Policy (if applicable)      

5.0 Recommendation

Recommend implementation of Option X [Cost (goods and services tax (GST)/harmonized sales tax (HST)), class of estimate, timing and comments]

6.0 Approval authority & funding

[Identify delegated approval authority and source of funding]

6.1 Cost estimate and cash flow table

This table is only an example and contains no data.
  2015-16 2016-17 Total
Construction (including contingency) $ $ $
Consultant fees $ $ $
Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) fees $ $ $
Risk allowance $ $ $
Sub-Total (excluding GST/HST) $ $ $
GST/HST $ $ $
Total $ $ $

7.0 Implementation plan

This table is only an example and contains no data.
Project milestones Date
Simplified Statement of Requirements  
Simplified Preliminary Project Plan  
Procurement of Consultant  
Simplified Project Management Plan  
Design  
Procurement of Contractor  
Simplified IAR – Expenditure Authority  
Construction  
Close Out  

8.0 Approval & signatures

This table is only an example and contains no data.
Action Date Signature
Prepared by:
(Name/Position)
   
Reviewed by:
(Name/Position)
   
Recommended by:
(Name/Position)
   
Approved by:
(Name/Position)
   

9.0 Appendix

[If required]